Opinion
Case No. 03-4172-RDR.
May 3, 2004
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This is an appeal from the denial of plaintiff's application for disabled widow's insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq. Defendant adopted the decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ who found that plaintiff did not have any impairment or impairments that significantly limited her ability to perform basic work-related activities. In other words, the ALJ found that plaintiff did not have a severe impairment as defined under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521. This finding correlates with step two of the five-step analysis undertaken to decide most disability benefits applications. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.
To be "severe" an impairment must "significantly limit [a claimant's] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521(a). Basic work activities are "the abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521(b). These activities include walking, standing, sitting, lifting, pushing, pulling, reaching, carrying, handling, seeing, hearing, speaking, understanding, carrying out and remembering simple instructions, and dealing with changes in routine work settings. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521. An impairment must have lasted or be expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1509.
The step two severity determination requires a de minimis showing of physical or mental limitations, but a claimant must demonstrate more than the mere presence of a condition or ailment to satisfy the step two requirement of the analysis for disability benefits. Williamson v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1097, 1100 (10th Cir. 2003). It does not require a showing that a claimant cannot perform her past relevant work. Hinkle v. Apfel, 132 F.3d 1349, 1353 n. 4 (10th Cir. 1997).
We review defendant's decision "to determine whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record and whether the correct legal standards were applied."Doyal v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 758, 760 (10th Cir. 2003). "Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Id. (quotations and citation omitted). However, "[a] decision is not based on substantial evidence if it is overwhelmed by other evidence in the record or if there is a mere scintilla of evidence supporting it." Bernal v. Bowen, 851 F.2d 297, 299 (10th Cir. 1988). A failure to apply the correct legal standards or demonstrate it was done is also grounds for reversal. Winfrey v. Chater, 92 F.3d 1017, 1019 (10th Cir. 1996).
The issue in this case boils down to whether the finding that plaintiff does not have a "severe" impairment is supported by substantial evidence.
It is undisputed that plaintiff has non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus and that this condition has existed for more than 12 months. Plaintiff lists several other conditions which are mentioned in plaintiff's medical records. Doc. No. 9 at p. 17. These include abdominal pain, joint or back problems, depression, abnormalities of the vagina, painful urination, sore throat, headache, hypertension and vision difficulties. However, the record does not show that many of these conditions and others plaintiff has listed, existed for more than 12 months. The record also does not show that these conditions, in combination with each other and plaintiff's diabetes, could be considered "severe." In sum, the record does not show that these impairments placed a significant limitation upon plaintiff's ability to perform basic work activities over a period of 12 months.
Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ failed to consider evidence relevant to whether plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to perform any gainful activity. However, the ALJ's decision that plaintiff did not suffer from a "severe" impairment is sufficient by itself to warrant the denial of the application for benefits. If this decision is supported by substantial evidence, there is no necessity to examine the question of plaintiff's residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a).
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to properly consider plaintiff's obesity in the decision to deny benefits. Plaintiff cites Social Security Ruling 00-3p, which states:
[O]besity may increase the severity of coexisting or related impairments to the extent that the combination of impairments meets the requirements of a listing. This is especially true of musculoskeletal, respiratory, and cardiovascular impairments. It may also be true for other coexisting or related impairments.
Plaintiff further notes that according to guidelines established by the National Institutes of Health, she is obese and that her body mass index is near "extreme" levels of obesity.
Defendant responds that the Social Security Ruling cited by plaintiff has been superseded by Social Security Ruling 02-1p, but agrees that obesity should be considered among other impairments in making the step-two analysis and other parts of the ALJ's consideration. Defendant asserts that the ALJ did consider plaintiff's obesity and simply concluded that it was not a severe impairment even in combination with plaintiff's other impairments. The court notes that Social Security Ruling 02-1p states:
There is no specific level of weight or BMI [body mass index] that equates with a "severe" or a "not severe" impairment. Neither do descriptive terms for levels of obesity (e.g., "severe," "extreme," or "morbid" obesity) establish whether obesity is or is not a "severe" impairment for disability program purposes. Rather we will do an individualized assessment of the impact of obesity on an individual's functioning when deciding whether the impairment is severe.
We further note that the application for benefits and the other parts of the record in this case either do not list obesity as a limiting condition or do not give it emphasis as such. (E.g., Tr. 96 and 227).
In this instance, the ALJ referred to plaintiff's obesity specifically in the context of an independent consultative physical disability evaluation. The ALJ noted that the doctor who conducted the evaluation "felt that the claimant probably would have some trouble with certain work activities due to diabetes, obesity and arthritic changes in some joints." (Tr. 17). However, the ALJ obviously concluded that this evaluation did not demonstrate that plaintiff's impairments would "significantly limit her ability to perform basic work-related activities." (Tr. 19). Although the ALJ could have been more thorough in his written analysis, we disagree with plaintiff's contention that he failed to properly consider plaintiff's obesity in his analysis of plaintiff's application for benefits.
The ALJ mentioned that plaintiff reported on various doctor's visits in 2001 and 2002 that she felt good or had no complaints or problems. (Tr. 17). He noted that plaintiff's diabetes was improved when she exercised better control over her diet and medication. He further stated that although a treating nurse practitioner indicated some exertional and nonexertional limitations, the nurse practitioner also explained that some of these limitations may have been caused by the failure to take certain diabetes medication with food and by the absence of physical conditioning caused by inactivity. (Tr. 17). The nurse practitioner additionally commented that "diabetes causes neuropathy `nerve pain' in legs and feet." (Tr. 263). Nevertheless, the ALJ concluded that the pain, fatigue and other symptoms described by plaintiff did not meet the severity and durational requirements for disability benefits. Our review of the medical records leads us to find that the ALJ's conclusions are supported by substantial evidence.
Upon careful examination of the record, the court believes that the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ applied the correct legal standards. Therefore, the court shall affirm defendant's decision to deny plaintiff's application for benefits.