Marquez v. Saul

          ORDER VACATING DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

          Daniel D. Domenico, United States District Judge

         Plaintiff Ramon Marquez suffered traumatic brain injury in a motorcycle accident. He applied for, but was denied, social security benefits by the Commissioner, and an administrative law judge ruled that, while Mr. Marquez would be unable to perform past relevant work, he was capable of light work and therefore “not disabled” within the meaning of Title II of the Social Security Act (“Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 401, et seq. This matter is before the Court on review of the Commissioner's decision denying Mr. Marquez's application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, together with the entire administrative record and the briefing of the parties. (Docs. 11, 15, 16.) For the reasons stated below, the Commissioner's decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further fact finding.

         LEGAL STANDARDS

         A. Entitlement to Disability Insurance Benefits

         To obtain disability insurance benefits under the Act, a claimant must meet the insured status requirements, be younger than 65 years of age, file an application for a period of disability, and have a “disability” within the meaning of the Act. 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423(a); Flint v. Sullivan, 951 F.2d 264, 267 (10th Cir. 1991). The disability must also have begun before expiration of the disability-insured status. 20 C.F.R. § 404.101; Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 83-10, 1983 WL 31251, at *8 (1983). Relevant here, a person has a disability

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, regardless of whether such work exists in the immediate area in which he lives, or whether a specific job vacancy exists for him, or whether he would be hired if he applied for work.

42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A). To qualify for benefits, the disabling impairment must last-or be expected to last-at least twelve months. Barn-hart v. Walton, 535 U.S. 212, 214-15 (2002). Evaluating the existence of a disability is a five-step, sequential process that ends at any point at which the claimant is found not disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-42 (1987); Casias v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 933 F.2d 799, 801 (10th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted).

         First, the claimant must demonstrate that he or she is not currently involved in any substantial, gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). Second, the claimant must show a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits his or her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. Id. at § 404.1520(c). Third, if the impairment matches or is equivalent to an established listing under the governing regulations, the claimant is judged conclusively disabled. Id. at § 404.1520(d). If the claimant's impairment does not match or is not equivalent to an established listing, the analysis proceeds to the fourth step. Id. at § 404.1520(e). Fourth, the claimant must show that the “impairment prevents [him or her] from performing work [he or she] has performed in the past.” Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 751 (10th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted); accord 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). Fifth, the Commissioner must demonstrate: (1) that based on the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience, the claimant can perform other work; and (2) the work that the claimant can perform is available in significant numbers in the national economy. Frey v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 508, 512 (10th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g).

         According to the “treating physician rule, ” the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) Commissioner will generally give more weight to medical opinions from treating sources than those from non-treating sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). “In deciding how much weight to give a treating source opinion, an ALJ must first determine whether the opinion qualifies for ‘controlling weight.'” Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297, 1300 (10th Cir. 2003). To make this determination, the ALJ:

must first consider whether the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. If the answer to this question is ‘no,' then the inquiry at this stage is complete. If the ALJ finds that the opinion is well-supported, he must then confirm that the opinion is consistent with other substantial evidence in the record. [I]f the opinion is deficient in either of these respects, then it is not entitled to controlling weight.

Id. (quotations omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (noting that although the SSA will consider evidence from treating medical sources, the final responsibility in deciding these issues remains with the Commissioner). Even if a treating physician's opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, “[t]reating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference” and must be weighed using the following factors:

(1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, including the treatment provided and the kind of examination or testing performed; (3) the degree to which the physician's opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (4) consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; (5) whether or not the physician is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is rendered; and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ's attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion.

Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1301 (quotation omitted). Finally, “[u]nder the regulations, the agency rulings, and our case law, an ALJ must give good reasons . . . for the weight assigned to a treating physician's opinion, ” that are “sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source's medical opinion and the reason for that weight.” Id. at 1300 (quotations omitted). “[I]f the ALJ rejects the opinion completely, he must then give specific, legitimate reasons for doing so.” Id. at 1301 (quotations omitted).

         Finally, the ALJ's responsibility to explain his decision concerning the evidence extends to any evaluation of a claimant's credibility:

According to Social Security Ruling 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186 (July 2, 1996), which governs an ALJ's evaluation of a claimant's description of symptoms, the evaluation must contain specific reasons for a credibility finding; the ALJ may not simply recite the factors that are described in the regulations. It is well-established that an ALJ's findings with respect to a claimant's credibility should be closely and affirmatively linked to substantial evidence and not just a conclusion in the guise of findings.

Hardman v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 676, 678-79 (10th Cir. 2004) (internal quotations omitted).

         B. Standard of Review ...