Corgill v. Social Security Administration

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JENNIFER LYNN CORGILL, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-23-033-JAR
)
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL 	)
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff 	Jennifer 	Lynn 	Corgill 	(the 	“Claimant”) 	requests
judicial review of the decision of the Commissioner of the Social
Security 	Administration 	(the 	“Commissioner”) 	denying 	Claimant’s
application for disability benefits under the Social Security Act.
Claimant 	appeals 	the 	decision 	of 	the 	Administrative 	Law 	Judge
(“ALJ”) 	and 	asserts 	that 	the 	Commissioner 	erred 	because 	the 	ALJ
incorrectly 	determined 	that 	Claimant 	was 	not 	disabled. 	For 	the
reasons 	discussed 	below, 	it 	is 	ordered 	that 	the 	Commissioner’s
decision be REVERSED and the case REMANDED for further proceedings.
Social Security Law and Standard of Review
Disability 	under 	the 	Social 	Security 	Act 	is 	defined 	as 	the
“inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason
of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment. . .”
42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). 	A claimant is disabled under the Social
6:23-cv-00033-JAR Document 23 Filed in ED/OK on 03/30/24 Page 1 of 11

2
Security 	Act 	“only 	if 	his 	physical 	or 	mental 	impairment 	or
impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do
his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and
work 	experience, 	engage 	in 	any 	other 	kind 	of 	substantial 	gainful
work 	which 	exists 	in 	the 	national 	economy. 	. 	.” 	42 	U.S.C.
§423(d)(2)(A). 	Social Security regulations implement a five-step
sequential process to evaluate a disability claim. 	See, 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1520, 416.920. 1
Judicial 	review 	of 	the 	Commissioner’s 	determination 	is
limited 	in 	scope 	by 	42 	U.S.C. 	§ 405(g). 	This 	Court’s 	review 	is
limited 	to 	two 	inquiries: 	first, 	whether 	the 	decision 	was
1 	Step one requires the claimant to establish that he is not engaged in
substantial 	gainful 	activity, 	as 	defined 	by 	20 	C.F.R. 	§§ 	404.1510, 	416.910.
Step two requires that the claimant establish that he has a medically severe
impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limit his ability
to do basic work activities. 	20 C.F.R. 	§§ 404.1521, 416.921. 	If the claimant
is 	engaged 	in 	substantial 	gainful 	activity 	(step 	one) 	or 	if 	the 	claimant’s
impairment is not medically severe (step two), disability benefits are denied.
At step three, the claimant’s impairment is compared with certain impairments
listed in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. 	A claimant suffering from a
listed impairment or impairments “medically equivalent” to a listed impairment
is determined to be disabled without further inquiry. 	If not, the evaluation
proceeds to step four, where claimant must establish that he does not retain
the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform his past relevant work. 	If
the claimant’s step four burden is met, the burden shifts to the Commissioner
to establish at step five that work exists in significant numbers in the national
economy 	which 	the 	claimant 	– 	taking 	into 	account 	his 	age, 	education, 	work
experience, 	and 	RFC 	– 	can 	perform. 	Disability 	benefits 	are 	denied 	if 	the
Commissioner shows that the impairment which precluded the performance of past
relevant work does not preclude alternative work. 	See generally, Williams v.
Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-51 (10th Cir. 1988).
6:23-cv-00033-JAR Document 23 Filed in ED/OK on 03/30/24 Page 2 of 11

3
supported 	by 	substantial 	evidence; 	and, 	second, 	whether 	the
correct legal standards were applied. 	Hawkins v. Chater, 113 F.3d
1162, 	1164 	(10th 	Cir. 	1997)(citation 	omitted). 	The 	term
“substantial 	evidence” 	has 	been 	interpreted 	by 	the 	United 	States
Supreme 	Court 	to 	require 	“more 	than 	a 	mere 	scintilla. 	It 	means
such 	relevant 	evidence 	as 	a 	reasonable 	mind 	might 	accept 	as
adequate 	to 	support 	a 	conclusion.” 	Richardson 	v. 	Perales, 	402
U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305
U.S. 	197, 	229 	(1938)). 	The 	court 	may 	not 	re-weigh 	the 	evidence
nor 	substitute 	its 	discretion 	for 	that 	of 	the 	agency. 	Casias 	v.
Secretary 	of 	Health 	& 	Human 	Servs., 	933 	F.2d 	799, 	800 	(10th 	Cir.
1991). 	Nevertheless, the court must review the record as a whole,
and 	the 	“substantiality 	of 	the 	evidence 	must 	take 	into 	account
whatever 	in 	the 	record 	fairly 	detracts 	from 	its 	weight.”
Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 488 (1951); see also,
Casias, 933 F.2d at 800-01.
Claimant’s Background
Claimant was 63 years old at the time of the ALJ’s decision.
Claimant obtained her GED and completed some vocational education.
Claimant 	has 	worked 	in 	the 	past 	as 	a 	nurse 	assistant 	and 	teacher
aide. 	Claimant 	alleges 	an 	inability 	to 	work 	beginning 	March 	3,
6:23-cv-00033-JAR Document 23 Filed in ED/OK on 03/30/24 Page 3 of 11

4
2020 	due 	to 	limitations 	resulting 	from 	rheumatoid 	arthritis,
osteoarthritis, 	neck 	pain, 	fibromyalgia, 	Ehlers 	Danlos 	Syndrome,
anxiety, depression, carpal tunnel and irritable bowel syndrome.
Procedural History
On 	February 	27, 	2020, 	Claimant 	protectively 	filed 	for
disability insurance benefits under Title II (42 U.S.C. § 401, et
seq.) 	of 	the 	Social 	Security 	Act. 	Claimant’s 	application 	was
denied 	initially 	and 	upon 	reconsideration. 	On 	May 	23, 	2022,
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Susanne M. Chichanowicz conducted
an 	administrative 	hearing 	by 	telephone 	due 	to 	the 	extraordinary
circumstances posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. 	On August 31, 2022,
the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision. 	On November 23, 2022, the
Appeals 	Council 	denied 	review. 	As 	a 	result, 	the 	decision 	of 	the
ALJ 	represents 	the 	Commissioner’s 	final 	decision 	for 	purposes 	of
further appeal. 	20 C.F.R. §§ 404.981, 416.1481.
Decision of the Administrative Law Judge
The 	ALJ 	made 	her 	decision 	at 	step 	four 	of 	the 	sequential
evaluation. 	She 	determined 	that, 	while 	Claimant 	suffered 	from
severe impairments, she retained the residual functional capacity
(“RFC”) to perform her past relevant work.
6:23-cv-00033-JAR Document 23 Filed in ED/OK on 03/30/24 Page 4 of 11

5
Error Alleged for Review
Claimant 	asserts 	the 	ALJ 	erred 	in 	(1) 	failing 	to 	properly
evaluate 	the 	medical 	opinion 	evidence; 	and 	(2) 	failing 	to 	obtain
sufficient information concerning the mental demands of Claimant’s
past relevant work.
Evaluation of Opinion Evidence
In 	her 	decision, 	the 	ALJ 	determined 	Claimant 	suffered 	from
the 	severe 	impairments 	of 	fibromyalgia 	syndrome, 	osteoarthritis,
rheumatoid 	arthritis, 	depressive 	disorder, 	and 	anxiety 	disorder.
(Tr. 	21). 	The 	ALJ 	found 	none 	of 	Claimant’s 	conditions 	met 	a
listing. 	(Tr. 	38-39). 	As 	a 	result 	of 	the 	limitations 	caused 	by
her severe impairments, Claimant was found to retain the residual
functional 	capacity 	to 	perform 	light 	work. 	In 	so 	doing, 	the 	ALJ
found Claimant could frequently lift, carry, push, and/or pull ten
pounds 	and 	occasionally 	up 	to 	20 	pounds; 	sit 	six 	hours 	out 	of 	an
eight-hour 	workday; 	stand 	and/or 	walk 	six 	hours 	out 	of 	an 	eight-
hour 	workday; 	occasionally 	climb 	ladders, 	ropes, 	or 	scaffolds;
frequently 	climb 	ramps 	or 	stirs, 	balance, 	stoop, 	kneel, 	crouch,
and 	crawl. 	Claimant 	can 	understand, 	remember, 	and 	carry 	out
detailed, but not complex instructions. 	(Tr. 43).
After 	consultation 	with 	a 	vocational 	expert, 	the 	ALJ
6:23-cv-00033-JAR Document 23 Filed in ED/OK on 03/30/24 Page 5 of 11

6
determined 	Claimant 	could 	perform 	her 	past 	relevant 	work 	as 	a
teacher’s 	aide. 	(Tr. 	57). 	Because 	of 	this 	finding, 	the 	ALJ
concluded that Claimant had not been under a disability from March
3, 2020 (her amended onset date) through the date of the decision.
(Tr. 58).
Claimant 	first 	contends 	the 	ALJ 	failed 	to 	properly 	evaluate
the medical opinions of Dr. Theresa Horton, a licensed psychologist
and Dr. Jennifer Guerrero. 	Dr. Horton concluded upon examination
of Claimant that
Jennifer 	appears 	to 	understand 	most 	complex
concepts, 	but 	manages 	best 	those 	tasks 	that
are 	simple 	and 	perhaps 	somewhat 	more 	complex
yet routine. 	She no longer appears to adjust
well 	to 	changes 	in 	routine 	or 	to 	the 	need 	to
learn 	new 	tasks 	which 	has 	become 	difficult.
Her 	pace 	is 	below 	average 	and 	has 	negative
impact on her level of productivity. 	Further,
she 	is 	experiencing 	problems 	with 	delayed
recall which is below average. 	Concentration
appears 	below 	average. 	She 	likely 	does 	not
adjust 	well 	in 	wettings 	that 	are 	fast 	paced
and/or densely populated.
(Tr. 672).
The 	ALJ 	cites 	extensively 	from 	Dr. 	Horton’s 	reports 	and
findings 	in 	the 	decision. 	(Tr. 	27-28, 	40-42, 	51-52, 	54).
However, after relying upon her findings, the ALJ states
To 	the 	extent 	aspects 	of 	the 	opinions 	can 	be
construed 	as 	consistent 	with 	the 	residual
functional capacity depicted above in Finding
6:23-cv-00033-JAR Document 23 Filed in ED/OK on 03/30/24 Page 6 of 11

7
No. 	5, 	the 	undersigned 	finds 	the 	opinions
partially supported and persuasive. 	However,
to 	the 	extent 	the 	opinions 	reflect 	greater
limitation of function, the undersigned finds
the 	opinions 	inconsistent 	with 	the
longitudinal 	record 	as 	the 	record 	does 	not
reflect 	the 	severity 	found 	by 	Dr. 	Horton,
especially 	considering 	the 	limited 	mental
health treatment of record (20 CFR 404.1520c).
(Tr. 54-55).
It 	is 	impossible 	from 	this 	conclusion 	to 	determine 	which
portions of Dr. Horton’s opinions and findings the ALJ found to be
supported and, therefore, accepted and which were rejected because
of 	the 	generalities 	expressed 	in 	the 	decision. 	The 	reference 	to
the “longitudinal record” is both vague and incomplete.
Because 	Claimant 	filed 	her 	claim 	after 	March 	27, 	2017, 	the
medical 	opinion 	evidence 	in 	the 	case 	is 	subject 	to 	evaluation
pursuant 	to 	20 	C.F.R. 	§§ 	404.1520c, 	416.920c. 	Under 	the 	revised
regulations, 	the 	ALJ 	does 	not 	“defer 	or 	give 	any 	specific
evidentiary 	weight, 	including 	controlling 	weight, 	to 	any 	medical
opinion(s)[.]” 	20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(a), 416.920c(a). 	Instead,
he must “articulate” in his decision “how persuasive [he] find[s]
all 	of 	the 	medical 	opinions 	and 	all 	of 	the 	prior 	administrative
medical 	findings 	in 	[the] 	case 	record” 	by 	considering 	a 	list 	of
factors. 	20 	C.F.R. 	§§ 	404.1520c(b), 	416.920c(b). 	The 	factors
include: (i) supportability, (ii) consistency, (iii) relationship
6:23-cv-00033-JAR Document 23 Filed in ED/OK on 03/30/24 Page 7 of 11

8
with 	the 	claimant 	(including 	length 	of 	treatment 	relationship,
frequency 	of 	examinations, 	purpose 	and 	extent 	of 	treatment
relationship, 	and 	examining 	relationship), 	(iv) 	specialization,
and (v) other factors that tend to support or contradict a medical
opinion 	or 	prior 	administrative 	finding 	(including, 	but 	not
limited 	to, 	“evidence 	showing 	a 	medical 	source 	has 	familiarity
with 	the 	other 	evidence 	in 	the 	claim 	or 	an 	understanding 	of 	our
disability program’s policies and evidentiary requirements.”). 	20
C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(c), 416.920c(c).
The 	most 	important 	factors 	are 	supportability 	and
consistency, 	and 	the 	ALJ 	must 	explain 	how 	both 	factors 	were
considered. 	See 	20 	C.F.R. 	§§ 	404.1520c(b)(2), 	416.920c(b)(2).
Generally, the ALJ is not required to explain how the other factors
were considered. 	Id. 	However, if the ALJ finds “that two or more
medical 	opinions 	or 	prior 	administrative 	findings 	about 	the 	same
issue 	are 	both 	equally 	well-supported 	. 	. 	. 	and 	consistent 	with
the record . . . but are not exactly the same, [he] will articulate
how [he] considered the other most persuasive factors in paragraphs
(c)(3) 	through 	(c)(5)[.]” 	20 	C.F.R. 	§§ 	404.1520c(b)(3),
416.920c(b)(3).
An 	ALJ 	continues 	to 	have 	the 	duty 	to 	evaluate 	every 	medical
opinion 	in 	the 	record 	regardless 	of 	its 	source. 	Hamlin 	v.
6:23-cv-00033-JAR Document 23 Filed in ED/OK on 03/30/24 Page 8 of 11

9
Barnhart, 365 F.3d 1208, 1215 (10th Cir. 2004). 	He may not “pick
and 	choose 	among 	medical 	reports, 	using 	portions 	of 	evidence
favorable to his position while ignoring other evidence.” 	Hardman
v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 676, 681 (10th Cir. 2004); see also Haga v.
Astrue, 	482 	F.3d 	1205, 	1208 	(10th 	Cir. 	2007) 	(finding 	an 	ALJ 	“is
not entitled to pick and choose through an uncontradicted medical
opinion, taking only the parts that are favorable to a finding of
nondisability”).
Because the analysis of the opinion is unspecific, this Court
cannot 	determine 	the 	ALJ’s 	position 	on 	the 	supportability 	and
consistency 	of 	Dr. 	Horton’s 	opinions. 	On 	remand, 	the 	ALJ 	shall
provide the required analysis and specificity.
Dr. Guerrero’s opinion was also rejected by the ALJ, but with
a 	better 	explanation 	for 	that 	rejection. 	She 	concluded 	after 	a
consultative 	examination 	that 	Claimant 	could 	understand, 	carry
out, 	and 	remember 	instructions 	involving 	one 	and 	two 	steps. 	Dr.
Guerrero, however, found that Claimant was unable to carry out and
remember 	complex 	instructions 	due 	to 	depression 	and 	a
neurocognitive 	disorder. 	She 	also 	determined 	Claimant 	could 	not
sustain 	concentration 	and 	persist 	in 	work-related 	activity,
maintain 	a 	reasonable 	pace 	or 	maintain 	effective 	social
interaction 	on 	a 	consistent 	and 	independent 	basis, 	with
6:23-cv-00033-JAR Document 23 Filed in ED/OK on 03/30/24 Page 9 of 11

10
supervisors, 	co-workers, 	and 	the 	public 	or 	deal 	with 	normal
pressure 	in 	a 	competitive 	work 	setting 	due 	to 	depression 	and 	a
neurocognitive disorder. 	(Tr. 914).
The 	ALJ 	found 	Dr. 	Guerrero’s 	opinions 	unsupported 	and
unpersuasive. 	(Tr. 	55). 	However, 	the 	ALJ 	is 	quite 	detailed 	in
finding 	that 	the 	objective 	testing, 	daily 	activities, 	social
interactions, 	independence, 	and 	lack 	of 	mental 	health 	treatment
did 	not 	support 	the 	cognitive 	limitations 	found 	by 	Dr. 	Guerrero.
Id.
The 	ALJ 	will 	be 	required 	to 	reanalyze 	and 	explain 	the
consistency 	and 	supportability 	of 	Dr. 	Horton’s 	opinions. 	While
the ALJ did support her findings with regard to Dr. Guerrero, she
should 	determine 	whether 	her 	reanalysis 	of 	Dr. 	Horton’s 	opinions
and their bases has any effect upon Dr. Guerrero’s findings.
Claimant 	also 	contends 	the 	ALJ 	should 	have 	determined 	the
mental 	requirements 	of 	Claimant’s 	past 	relevant 	work 	before
concluding Claimant could return to that work. 	On remand, the ALJ
shall examine the mental demands of Claimant’s past relevant work
as 	a 	teacher’s 	aide 	through 	the 	use 	of 	a 	vocational 	expert 	and
expressly 	determine 	whether 	Claimant’s 	mental 	limitations 	allow
her to do that work.
6:23-cv-00033-JAR Document 23 Filed in ED/OK on 03/30/24 Page 10 of 11

11
Conclusion
The 	decision 	of 	the 	Commissioner 	is 	not 	supported 	by
substantial 	evidence 	and 	the 	correct 	legal 	standards 	were 	not
applied. 	Therefore, 	this 	Court 	finds, 	in 	accordance 	with 	the
fourth 	sentence 	of 	42 	U.S.C. 	§ 	405(g), 	the 	ruling 	of 	the
Commissioner 	of 	Social 	Security 	Administration 	should 	be 	and 	is
REVERSED 	and 	the 	case 	is 	REMANDED 	to 	Defendant 	for 	further
proceedings consistent with this decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 30 th day of March, 2024.
______________________________
JASON A. ROBERTSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6:23-cv-00033-JAR Document 23 Filed in ED/OK on 03/30/24 Page 11 of 11