Randall Scott Ritchie v. Commissioner of Social Security

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 13a0866n.06
No. 12-2405
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
RANDALL SCOTT RITCHIE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
BEFORE: MERRITT, GIBBONS and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.
MERRITT, Circuit Judge. Randall Ritchie appeals a district court judgment affirming the
Commissioner’s denial of his application for social security disability benefits pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Ritchie was born on June 11, 1966. Plaintiff suffers from paraplegia, spinal cord injury, post-
traumatic stress disorder, anxiety disorder and paralysis of bowel and bladder stemming from the
spinal cord injury. Plaintiff broke two vertebrae and suffered lumbar spinal cord compression after
falling approximately 25 feet in August of 1986 while serving in the army. The injury caused
temporary paralysis in both legs and permanent bladder and bowel impairment. He continues to
have loss of sensation over the pelvic girdle and in portions of his lower extremities. As a result of
the bowel and bladder impairment, plaintiff must self-catheterize to urinate and use digital
stimulation to move his bowels.

-- 1 of 6 --

Ritchie v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.
No. 12-2405
Plaintiff received a 100% total and permanent disability rating by the Department of Veterans
Affairs (formerly the Veterans Administration) in 1987 and a medical discharge from the army after
his accident. He continued rehabilitation after leaving the army, obtained his bachelor’s degree,
married and had two children. He worked as a teacher, corrections officer and consultant to an
automobile supplier. He last worked as a corrections officer for the Michigan Department of
Corrections but left in 2004 due to his mental and physical condition. He has not worked since that
time.
Plaintiff filed for disability benefits in January 2008, citing an onset of disability date of
January 31, 2004. On June 22, 2010, an administrative law judge denied benefits, finding that
plaintiff could perform a substantial number of light or sedentary jobs in the economy. That decision
became the final decision of the Commissioner after the Appeals Council approved the denial.
Plaintiff then filed for review in the district court. The Opinion and Order of the district court dated
August 27, 2012, adopted the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge to affirm the
denial of benefits by the administrative law judge. This timely appeal followed.
Plaintiff’s main argument on appeal is that the administrative law judge failed to give
adequate weight to the 100% disability rating plaintiff received from the Veterans Administration
in 1987 and, additionally, failed to explain the reason for not giving it more weight. The
administrative law judge was not bound to accept the disability rating made by the Veterans
Administration. The social security disability rules are clear:
A decision by any . . . other governmental agency about whether you are
disabled . . . is based upon its rules and is not our decision about whether you are
disabled . . . . We must make a disability . . . determination based on social security
2

-- 2 of 6 --

Ritchie v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.
No. 12-2405
law. Therefore, a determination made by another agency that you are disabled . . .
is not binding on us.
20 C.F.R. § 404.1504. We have held that a disability rating from the Veterans Administration is
entitled to consideration, but we have not specified the weight such a determination should carry
when determining social security disability eligibility. Stewart v. Heckler, 730 F.2d 1065, 1068 (6th
Cir. 1984). The record reflects that the administrative law judge gave consideration to the Veterans
Administration disability determination: “[T]he VA determined the claimant was medically unfit
for active duty in 1988 and rated him 100% disabled from April 1987. . . . I am not bound by their
decision; but I did consider [it].” ALJ Decision at 12. Although not citing to the social security
regulations, the administrative law judge clearly stated a proper understanding of the law when she
stated she was not bound by the Veterans Administration finding.
Plaintiff also claims that the administrative law judge did not adequately explain her reasons
for not accepting the Veterans Administration’s disability rating. Plaintiff fails to look at the entire
decision. The administrative law judge described some of the medical findings made by the
Veterans Administration in 1987 and 1988 to demonstrate that they are not compatible with a finding
of disability under the social security regulations. The decision analyzed in detail plaintiff’s current
medical and psychological condition, the opinions of plaintiff’s current treating physicians, his work
history and his daily living habits. The 1987 disability rating by the Veterans Administration is only
one factor to be considered in making a social security disability finding. As such, and given the
long time span since the rating was rendered, the administrative law judge was not required to go
into detail about a medical finding from 1987 in her decision.
3

-- 3 of 6 --

Ritchie v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.
No. 12-2405
Plaintiff also argues that because he would have received social security disability benefits
had he applied for them in 1987, but instead chose to work, he should be compensated now and not
penalized for the years he worked after his injury. He contends that his 17 years of work after the
1987 total disability rating should not be considered in determining his eligibility for social security
benefits now. However, social security disability benefits are premised on the claimant’s physical
and mental condition, age, education and work experience during the period of claimed disability,
which in this case commences on January 31, 2004, and goes through December 31, 2009.
Plaintiff’s eligibility or ineligibility for social security benefits in 1987 is not determinative of his
current eligibility. We are sympathetic to plaintiff’s challenges, but the administrative law judge
made detailed findings about his abilities during the 2004 to 2009 period at issue here. She relied
on plaintiff’s own assessment of his work and leisure activities in conjunction with medical records
and opinion and we find that substantial evidence supports her findings.
Plaintiff also mentions in the argument section of his brief that the administrative law judge
erred in failing to find that plaintiff’s spinal disorder equals Listing 1.04B (spinal disorders) set forth
at 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, and benefits should be awarded. Pl. Br. at 24-25.
Plaintiff also includes a brief paragraph in his Statement in Support of Oral Argument challenging
the administrative law judge’s finding that plaintiff’s testimony as to pain and functional limitations
was not credible because it was not supported by the medical evidence in the record. Pl. Br. at ix.
The Commissioner contends that both these arguments are waived on appeal because plaintiff failed
to present any analysis or point to evidence to support either issue. Although plaintiff failed to
present either argument as a separate issue to be reviewed on appeal and failed to provide any
4

-- 4 of 6 --

Ritchie v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.
No. 12-2405
analysis in his brief, we have reviewed these issues and find them to be without merit. Briefly,
Listing 1.04B requires medical evidence of compression of a nerve root or the spinal cord or the
inability to ambulate effectively. The plaintiff has not demonstrated either requirement. To meet
a listed impairment, a claimant must point to specific medical evidence that satisfies all the criteria
in the listing. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1525(d). While plaintiff may have met the listing in 1986
immediately after his accident, we agree with the analysis in the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation that he has not presented medical opinion to establish that his condition meets or
is equivalent to Listing 1.04B during the relevant time frame of 2004 to 2009. Report and
Recommendation at pp.5-8.
As to the credibility issue, plaintiff concedes that the administrative law judge’s credibility
findings may not be disturbed absent “compelling reason.” We have held that an administrative law
judge’s credibility findings are virtually “unchallengeable.” Payne v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No.08-
4706, 2010 WL 4810212, at *3 (6th Cir. Nov. 18, 2010). The Report and Recommendation
thoroughly analyzes plaintiff’s challenges to the administrative law judge’s credibility
determinations. It found that the administrative law judge articulated her reasons for finding plaintiff
not credible, citing extensively to both the medical record and plaintiff’s own assessment of his
abilities and limitations. Report and Recommendation at pp. 11-16. We agree with the magistrate
judge’s determination that no “compelling” reason exists to disturb the credibility findings by the
administrative law judge.
5

-- 5 of 6 --

Ritchie v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.
No. 12-2405
For the reasons stated above and the reasons given in the thorough report of the magistrate
judge rendered on June 15, 2012, and adopted by the district court on Aug. 27, 2012, we affirm the
judgment of the district court.
6

-- 6 of 6 --