Lumpkin v. Kijakazi

E.D. Washington

Lumpkin v. Kijakazi

District Court, E.D. Washington·Decided December 8, 2022·No. 1:22-cv-03001·Unknown

Opinion

Dec 08, 2022

SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

RALPH L.,1 No. 1:22-cv-3001-EFS

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S v. SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTION, DENYING DEFENDANT’S KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTION, Commissioner of Social Security, AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER Defendant. Plaintiff Ralph L. appeals the denial of benefits by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Because the ALJ misconstrued a critical statement in a treating physician’s medical opinion and did not discuss probative evidence about lumbar scarring, the ALJ’s sequential evaluation was consequentially impacted. This matter is remanded for further proceedings.

1 For privacy reasons, Plaintiff is referred to by first name and last initial or as “Plaintiff.” See LCivR 5.2(c). I. Five-Step Disability Determination A five-step evaluation determines whether a claimant is disabled.2 Step one assesses whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity.3 Step two

assesses whether the claimant has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limit the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.4 Step three compares the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments to several recognized by the Commissioner to be so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity.5 Step four assesses whether an impairment prevents the claimant from performing work he performed in the past

by determining the claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC).6 Step five assesses whether the claimant can perform other substantial gainful work—work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy—considering the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience.7

2 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). 3 Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i), (b). 4 Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), (c). 5 Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), (d). 6 Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). 7 Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v), (g). II. Background Following a car accident, Plaintiff was diagnosed with multilevel degenerative disk and facet change with most significant findings at L5-S1 and

with a mild mass on the descending right S1 nerve root, along with foraminal stenosis at L5-S1, which was suspected to be irritating or impinging the left L5 nerve root.8 Plaintiff underwent lumbar surgery in 2011.9 Thereafter, Plaintiff continued to suffer from lumbar back pain and later cervical neck pain. Plaintiff sought treatment for his back and neck pain from Dr. Alyssa Stickney, who managed his opioid medication and oversaw his other

treatment, including physical therapy, injections, and ultimately another lumbar surgery to address Plaintiff’s degenerative disk disease in September 2020.10 Although it was suspected that Plaintiff also had pseudomeningocele (a collection of fluid in the spinal cord), no pseudomeningocele was observed during the September 2020 surgery. Instead, extreme scarring from the prior surgery was found, requiring the surgeon to perform a complex revision decompression of the L5-S1, which took “50 percent longer than usual.”11 In addition to the L5-S1

decompression surgery, the following were performed: microscopically-aided L2-3

8 AR 639. 9 AR 423. 10 See e.g., AR 482–564, 575–765. 11 AR 955. bilateral partial facetectomies, foraminotomies, and left-sided discectomy; full neurolysis at L5 and S1 bilaterally; posterior 3-column osteotomy at L5-S1 for deformity correction; posterior bilateral interbody fusions at L5-S1 with cages and

local bone graft; posterolateral nonsegmental instrumentation and fusion at L5-S1 with a rod system with local bone graft; and microscopic dissection for neural decompression. The surgery relieved Plaintiff’s lumbar pain significantly. However, Plaintiff continued to have significant neck pain. Imaging indicated that Plaintiff had degenerative changes at C3–C4 and C4-C5, moderate central canal narrowing and

moderate left foraminal narrowing at C3-C4, C2–C5 neck dysplasia, and hyperlordosis of C4.12 Plaintiff filed a Title 2 application alleging disability beginning March 22, 2011.13 After the agency denied his application initially and on reconsideration, Plaintiff requested a hearing before an ALJ.14 ALJ Cynthia Hale held a telephonic hearing in February 2021, during which Plaintiff and a vocational expert

12 AR 425–27, 1003. 13 AR 25, 184–87. In 2013, Plaintiff filed a prior disability application; that application was denied. AR 61–78. Plaintiff was not represented by counsel during that disability-application process. AR 64. 14 AR 112–14, 120–28. testified.15 Plaintiff testified that his low-back conditions and later his cervical conditions caused him significant pain that restricted his activities of daily living. For instance, Plaintiff testified that he was limited during the relevant period of

April 9, 2016, to December 31, 2016, as to doing laundry and dishes and sitting more than 15–20 minutes.16 Plaintiff reported that he had back pain when changing positions, it took him longer to get dressed, and he needed to lean on something when he went to the grocery store.17 Plaintiff testified that after his September 2020 lumbar surgery, his low-back pain and his ability to perform household chores greatly improved but that he still had pain and limitations,

largely due to his cervical impairments.18 The ALJ denied Plaintiff’s application.19 In conducting the sequential disability evaluation, the ALJ found:  Step one: Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since April 9, 2016, the date of the prior ALJ’s disability denial, through Plaintiff’s date of last insured, December 31, 2016.

15 AR 38–60. 16 AR 46–50. 17 AR 48–50. 18 AR 51–52. 19 AR 22–37.  Step two: Plaintiff had the following medically determinable severe impairment: degenerative disc disease, status post laminectomy.  Step three: Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of

impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments.  RFC: Plaintiff had the ability to perform light work with standing and walking limited to 4 hours in an 8-hour workday so long as Plaintiff could change positions at least once per hour, with the additional limitations:

occasional climbing ramps and stairs; no climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolding; frequent balancing; occasional stooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling; avoidance of concentrated exposure to extreme cold, excessive vibration, and workplace hazards such as dangerous machinery; and avoidance of concentrated exposure to working at unprotected heights.

 Step four: Plaintiff was unable to perform past relevant work.  Step five: considering Plaintiff’s RFC, age, education, and work history, Plaintiff could perform work that existed in significant numbers in the national economy, such as laundry aide, assembler of small products, and office helper. In reaching her decision, the ALJ found the treating opinions of Dr. Stickney, who opined disabling limitations, unpersuasive and the reviewing opinion of Dr. Charles Wolfe, who opined that Plaintiff could perform light work consistent with the RFC, partially persuasive.20 The ALJ also found Plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause some of the alleged symptoms, but his statements concerning the intensity, persistence,

and limiting effects of those symptoms were “not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record.”21 The ALJ did not mention the report prepared by Plaintiff’s wife concerning Plaintiff’s symptoms and limitations.22 Plaintiff requested review of the ALJ’s decision by the Appeals Council, which denied review.23 Plaintiff timely appealed to the Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI