Opinion
Case No. 06-1343-WEB.
December 4, 2007
ORDER
This is an action reviewing the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying the plaintiff disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income payments. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Reid for a recommendation and report pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Report and Recommendations was filed on August 22, 2007. The defendant filed objections to the Report on August 28, 2007. The plaintiff filed his Response to Objections on September 7, 2007.
I. History
On May 25, 2006, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision in which he concluded the claimant was not disabled. The Report filed by the Magistrate Judge found the ALJ erred in his Residual Function Capacity (RFC) findings. Specifically, the RFC assessment did not comply with the requirements of Social Security Ruling 96-8p, which requires the ALJ to provide a narrative discussion describing how the evidence supports each conclusion. The lack of a narrative discussion results in an insufficient record on which to make RFC findings.
II. Standard of Review
De novo review is statutorily and constitutionally required when written objections to a magistrate's report are timely filed. Summers v. State of Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991). The court has considerable discretion in choosing what reliance to place on the magistrate's findings and recommendations. The district court can follow or ignore the magistrate's recommendation, but it should make an independent determination of the issues. Andrews v. Deland, 943 F.2d 1162, 1170 (10th Cir. 1991). A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C).
We review the Commissioner's decision to determine whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record and whether the correct legal standards were applied. Hackett v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1168, 1172 (10th Cir. 2005). Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Id. It requires more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance. Zoltanski v. F.A.A., 372 F.3d 1195, 1200 (10th Cir. 2004).
III. Discussion
The Commissioner is required to follow a five step sequential evaluation process to determine whether a claimant is disabled. The claimant bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of disability at step one through four. Hackett, 395 F.3d at 1171. Step one requires the claimant to demonstrate he is not presently engaged in substantial gainful activity. At step two, he must show he has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments. Grogan v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 1257, 1261 (10th Cir. 2005). At step three, if a claimant can show that the impairment is equivalent to a listed impairment, he is presumed to be disabled and entitled to benefits. Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750 (10th Cir. 1988). If the claimant does not meet a listing at step three, he continues to step four, which requires the claimant to show the impairment or combination of impairments prevents him from performing his past work. Grogan, 399 F.3d at 1261. If the claimant successfully meets this burden, the burden of proof shifts to the Commissioner at step five to show that the claimant retains sufficient residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform work in the national economy, given age, education, and work experience. Hackett, 395 F.3d at 1171. "If a determination can be made at any step that the claimant is or is not disabled, evaluation under a subsequent step is not necessary." Williams, 844 F.2d at 750.
RFC is an assessment of an individual's ability to do sustained work-related physical and mental activities in a work setting on a regular and continuing basis. A regular and continuing basis means 8 hours a day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent work schedule. SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184 at 1. The RFC assessment considers only functional limitations and restrictions that result from an individual's medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments, including the impact of any related symptoms. SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374181 at 1. The RFC assessment must first identify the individual's functional limitations or restrictions and assess his or her work related abilities on a function-by-function basis. SR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374181 at 1. Physical abilities are ascertained by assessing the nature and extent of physical limitations and then making a determination of the claimant's residual functional capacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis. A limited ability to perform certain physical demands of work activity, such as sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions (including manipulative or postural functions, such as reaching, handling, stooping or crouching), may reduce the claimant's ability to do past work and other work. 20 C.F.R. 404.1545(b), 20 C.F.R. § 416.967.
Light work involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds. Even though the weight lifted may be very little, a job is in this category when it requires a good deal of walking or standing, or when it involves sitting most of the time with some pushing and pulling of arm or leg controls. To be considered capable of performing a full or wide range of light work, the claimant must have the ability to do substantially all of these activities. If someone can do light work, then he or she can also do sedentary work, unless there are additional limiting factors such as loss of fine dexterity or inability to sit for long periods of time. 20 C.F.R. 404.1567(b).
The RFC assessment must include a narrative discussion describing how the evidence supports each conclusion, citing specific medical facts (e.g., laboratory findings) and nonmedical evidence (e.g., daily activities, observations). In assessing RFC, the adjudicator must discuss the individual's ability to perform sustained work activities in an ordinary work setting on a regular and continuing basis (i.e., 8 hours a day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent work schedule), and describe the maximum amount of each work-related activity the individual can perform based on the evidence available in the case record. The adjudicator must also explain how any material inconsistencies or ambiguities in the evidence in the case record were considered and resolved. 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184 at 7.
The ALJ spent considerable time in his narrative findings on the medical evidence, as well as the daily activity of the claimant. Then, the ALJ addressed the RFC of the claimant. The ALJ stated the claimant "does retain the residual functional capacity for a wide range of light work, which involves lifting no more than twenty pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to ten pounds." (R. at 19). The medical evidence in the record does not support the ALJ's finding. Only one physician, Dr. Schneider, addressed the lifting or carrying of objects. Dr. Schneider determined the claimant was able to lift and carry ten pounds. The ALJ rejected this opinion, as it was not supported by medical evidence. However, there is no medical evidence from the other treating physicians regarding the amount the claimant can lift, and at what frequency.
The ALJ did not link the medical evidence to his conclusion. If the alleged impairments effect the claimant's ability to perform any of the seven strength demands (sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, and pulling), failure to compare the restrictions with the functional demands of light work as defined by the regulations is error. Delaney v. Apfel, 1999 WL 373274 (10th Cir, 1999). See also 20 C.F.R. § 416.945(b). The ALJ disregarded the supporting physician's medical assessment, and relies on the claimant's statements regarding his own daily activity. The ALJ did not comply with the provisions of 96-8p. Although the ALJ can rely on nonmedical evidence, there must also be a medical basis for the RFC determination.
The RFC assessment is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. The adjudicator determined the claimant could perform sustained work activities on a regular and continuing basis, but was unable to cite specific medical evidence to support this conclusion. The ALJ described the maximum amount of work-related activity the claimant could perform, but was unable to cite specific medical evidence to support this conclusion.
IV. Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the objections to the magistrate's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) be denied. The magistrate's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14) is hereby affirmed and the Commissioner's decision is reversed and remanded. Judgment shall be entered pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) remanding the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.