United States District Court, D. Colorado
PATRICK E. LEDBETTER, Plaintiff,
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, [1] Defendant.
ORDER VACATING AND REMANDING ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
JUDGE'S DENIAL OF SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS
WILLIAM J. MARTÍNEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This is
a Social Security benefits appeal brought under 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g). Plaintiff Patrick E. Ledbetter
(“Ledbetter” or “claimant”)
challenges the final decision of Defendant, the Social
Security Administration (the “Administration”),
denying his application for disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income benefits (collectively,
“Social Security benefits”). The denial was
affirmed by an administrative law judge (“ALJ”),
who ruled that Ledbetter was not disabled within the meaning
of the Social Security Act. This appeal followed.
For the
reasons set forth below, the ALJ's decision is vacated
and this case is remanded to the Administration for further
proceedings consistent with this Order.
I.
BACKGROUND
Ledbetter
was born in 1968 and was 45 years old on the alleged onset
date of October 1, 2013.[2] (Administrative Record
(“R.”) [ECF No. 11] at 93, 104.) His highest
level of educational achievement is a General Educational
Development (GED) certificate. (R. at 102, 113.) In the
fifteen years preceding the alleged onset date, he worked as
a knife operator, forklift operator, rail operator, yard
manager, yard dispatcher, yard supervisor, and deliveryman.
(R. at 101, 112.)
Ledbetter
applied for disability insurance benefits on July 14, 2014
(R. at 178), and for supplemental security income on July 31,
2014 (R. at 180). He claimed that he is disabled due to
diabetic neuropathy in his hands, diabetes, schizoaffective
disorder, bipolar disorder, and depression. (R. at 93, 104.)
The Administration denied Ledbetter's applications on
September 15, 2014. (R. at 102-03, 113-14.) Ledbetter
requested and received a hearing in front of an
Administrative Law Judge, Matthew C. Kawalek. (R. at 51,
121.) That hearing took place on September 7, 2016. (R. at
51.) On November 8, 2016, the ALJ issued a written decision
in accordance with the Administration's five-step
sequential evaluation process.[3] (R. at 21.)
At step
one, the ALJ found that Ledbetter had not engaged in
substantial gainful activity since October 1, 2013. (R. at
26.)
At step
two, the ALJ found that Ledbetter “has the following
severe impairments: diabetes with neuropathy, bilateral
carpal tunnel syndrome, lumbar degenerative disc disease,
syncope, obesity, schizoaffective disorder, anxiety disorder,
depression, and opioid dependence.” (Id.)
At step
three, the ALJ found that Ledbetter's impairments, while
severe, did not meet or medically equal any of the
“listed” impairments in the Social Security
regulations. (R. at 28.)
Before
proceeding to step four, the ALJ assessed Ledbetter's
residual functional capacity (“RFC”). The ALJ
concluded that Ledbetter has the RFC
to perform a reduced range of sedentary work as defined in 20
CFR 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a) meaning that the claimant can
lift and carry 10 pounds occasionally and less than 10 pounds
frequently. The claimant can stand and/or walk for two hours
out of an eight-hour day and sit for six hours out of
an eight-hour day [“six-hour sitting
limitation”]. The claimant can frequently operate hand
and foot controls bilaterally. The claimant can never climb
ladders, ropes, or scaffolds and can occasionally stoop,
kneel, crouch, crawl, or climb ramps and stairs. The claimant
can frequently handle, finger, and feel bilaterally. The
claimant can tolerate no exposure to hazards. The claimant
should not be subject to a production rate pace, such as
assembly line work.
(R. at 31 (emphasis added).) Then, at step four, the ALJ
concluded that Ledbetter's RFC precludes him from
returning to his past relevant work. (R. at 41.)
At step
five, the ALJ found that Ledbetter's RFC permits him to
work as a food and beverage order clerk, a charge account
clerk, and a microfilm document preparer. (R. at 42.)
Accordingly,
the ALJ found that Ledbetter was not entitled to disability
insurance benefits or supplemental security income benefits.
(R. at 42-43.) Ledbetter appealed to the Social Security
Appeals Council, which denied review on November 21, 2017.
(R. at 1.) Ledbetter then filed this action seeking review of
the ALJ's November 8, 2016 decision. (ECF No. 1.)
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The
Court reviews the Administration's decision to determine
whether substantial evidence in the record as a whole
supports the factual findings and whether the correct legal
standards were applied. Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d
1048, 1052 (10th Cir. 2009). Substantial evidence is the
amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id.
“It requires more than a scintilla, but less than a
preponderance.” Lax, 489 F.3d at 1084.
Evidence is not substantial if it is overwhelmed by other
evidence in the record. Grogan v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d
1257, 1261-62 (10th Cir. 2005).
In
reviewing the Administration's decision, the Court may
neither reweigh the evidence nor substitute its judgment for
that of the agency. Salazar v. Barnhart, 468 F.3d
615, 621 (10th Cir. 2006). “On the other hand, if the
ALJ failed to apply the correct legal test, there is a ground
for reversal apart from a lack of ...