Maio v. SSA

2011 DNH 092

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: June 7, 2011
• Docket: CV-10-235-JL
• Status: Published

Opinion

Maio v . SSA CV-10-235-JL 6/7/11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joyce Elizabeth Maio

v. Civil N o . 10-cv-235-JL Opinion N o . 2011 DNH 092 Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This is an appeal from the denial of plaintiff Joyce

Elizabeth Maio’s application for Social Security disability

benefits. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The administrative law judge

(“ALJ”) found that Maio, while severely impaired by fibromyalgia

and joint pain, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c), was not disabled

because she had the residual functional capacity to perform light

work, see id. § 404.1567(b), and was capable of making an

adjustment from her previous work as a medical assistant to other

jobs existing in the national economy, see id. §§ 404.1520(g).

In making those findings, the ALJ rejected Maio’s more severe

description of her symptoms as “not fully credible” and also

rejected a supporting assessment by her primary care provider (a

nurse practitioner) as “not supported by objective findings,”

instead relying on the assessment of a state agency physician who

had not examined Maio.

Maio has moved for an order reversing the ALJ’s decision,

see L.R. 9.1(b)(1), arguing that it was not supported by

substantial evidence. The Commissioner of the Social Security

Administration (“SSA”) has cross-moved for an order affirming that decision, see L.R. 9.1(d), arguing the opposite. This court

has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal

question) and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (Social Security). After

reviewing the administrative record, the parties’ joint statement

of material facts, and their respective memoranda, this court

grants Maio’s motion, denies the Commissioner’s motion, and

remands the case for reconsideration in light of Johnson v .

Astrue, 597 F.3d 409 (1st Cir. 2009), which held that it “was

error” in a fibromyalgia case for an ALJ to reject a treating

provider’s assessment of disability based on the lack of

“objective evidence” to support i t . Id. at 412.

I. Applicable legal standard

“Judicial review of a Social Security claim is limited to

determining whether the ALJ used the proper legal standards and

found facts upon the proper quantum of evidence.” Ward v . Comm’r

of Social Security, 211 F.3d 6 5 2 , 655 (1st Cir. 2000) (citing

Nguyen v . Chater, 172 F.3d 3 1 , 35 (1st Cir. 1999)). If the ALJ’s

factual findings were supported by “substantial evidence,” they

are “conclusive,” even if the court disagrees with the ALJ, and

even if other evidence supports a contrary conclusion. 42 U.S.C.

§ 405(g); see also, e.g., Nguyen, 172 F.3d at 3 5 . Substantial

evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might

accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Becker v . Sec’y of

2 Health & Human Servs., 895 F.2d 3 4 , 36 (1st Cir. 1990) (quoting

Richardson v . Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)).

That standard is not, however, “merely [a] rubber stamp [of]

the ALJ’s decision.” Scott v . Barnhart, 297 F.3d 589, 593 (7th

Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted). If the ALJ’s decision was based

on “a legal or factual error,” or otherwise unsupported by

substantial evidence, then it must be reversed and remanded under

section 405(g). Manso-Pizarro v . Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,

76 F.3d 1 5 , 16 (1st Cir. 1996) (quoting Sullivan v . Hudson, 490

U.S. 8 7 7 , 885 (1989)); see also, e.g., Johnson, 597 F.3d at 411;

Nguyen, 172 F.3d at 35 (ALJ’s findings are not conclusive where

“derived by ignoring evidence, misapplying the law, or judging

matters entrusted to experts”).

A five-step process is used to evaluate an application for

Social Security disability benefits. See 20 C.F.R. §

404.1520(a)(4). The applicant bears the burden, through the

first four steps, of proving that she is disabled, i.e., that (1)

she is not engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) she has a

severe impairment; (3) the impairment meets or equals a specific

impairment listed in SSA regulations; and (4) the impairment

prevents her from performing her previous relevant work. Id. At

step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove that

the applicant has the residual functional capacity to perform

other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national

3 economy. Id.; see also, e.g., Heggarty v . Sullivan, 947 F.2d

990, 995 (1st Cir. 1991).

II. Background

Maio is a 55-year-old woman from Merrimack, New Hampshire

who has an associate’s degree in medical science. Before getting

that degree, she had been a stay-at-home mom, a cafeteria worker,

and then an office manager. After getting her degree, she worked

for about eight years as a medical assistant, mostly at S t .

Joseph Hospital in Nashua, New Hampshire. In 2004, she was

diagnosed with fibromyalgia, a “syndrome of chronic pain of

musculoskeletal origin but uncertain cause.” Johnson, 597 F.3d

at 410 (quoting Stedman’s Medical Dictionary 671 (27th ed.

2000)). She kept working, with minor accommodations, until 2006.

At that point, her pain and fatigue allegedly worsened, and she

quit her job. In 2007, she applied for Social Security

disability benefits, alleging that she had become disabled due to

fibromyalgia and various other medical problems, including

chronic fatigue syndrome, acid reflux, hypertension, pre-

diabetes, anemia, and depression.

Wendy Wright, a nurse practitioner who has been Maio’s

primary care provider for more than 10 years, maintains that Maio

cannot work full-time because of the pain and fatigue caused by

her fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome. Specifically,

4 Wright’s assessment is that Maio can sit for only 2 hours in an

8-hour workday, stand for only 2 hours, and walk for only 1 hour,

requiring frequent breaks during those periods. But D r . Charles

Meader, a state agency physician who reviewed Maio’s medical

records in 2008, made a different assessment. D r . Meader

concluded that the “totality of medical evidence of record

indicates that in spite of fibromyalgia, fatigue, and

polyarthralgias” (i.e., joint pain), Maio can stand or walk for 6

hours in an 8-hour workday and sit for 6 hours, making her

capable of full-time work.1

The ALJ held an evidentiary hearing in 2010, at which Maio

and her husband testified about her employment history, her

medical problems, and her daily activities. Maio testified that

her physical condition varies from day to day. She has some good

days (about 4 or 5 per month), but mostly bad days, on which she

feels severe pain and stiffness in her joints, as well as

fatigue, which causes her energy to “peter out” by noon, at which

point she needs to lie down. She acknowledged, however, that she

can still drive her car, perform basic household chores, and tend

her garden. Maio testified that, at least once per month, she

suffers a more intense “flare up” of her symptoms, which requires

1 Dr. Meader gave the “[m]ost weight” to records from Maio’s rheumatologist, D r . Caryn Libbey, who (like Wright) had diagnosed Maio with fibromyalgia, but had not made a residual functional capacity assessment.

5 her to stay in bed for several days. Her husband testified that,

during her last months of work, Maio was “totally exhausted” and

“struggled to get through the day.”

Shortly after that hearing, the ALJ issued a decision

denying Maio’s disability claim. While acknowledging that Maio

was severely impaired by fibromyalgia and joint pain, see 20

C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), and that those “impairments could

reasonably be expected to cause [her] alleged symptoms,” the ALJ

found that Maio’s testimony regarding the extent of her symptoms

and functional limitations was “not fully credible.” The ALJ

noted, in particular, that Maio’s medical records indicated that

she had been “under stress” and “doing way too much” to care for

her granddaughter around the time when her alleged disability

began, but had since been trying to exercise every day (including

both walking and swimming), had declined medications that would

help to ease her symptoms, and had “enjoy[ed] terrifically” an

online medical transcription course.

The ALJ likewise rejected Wright’s supporting assessment,

explaining that Wright “is not an acceptable medical source

because she is a nurse,” see id. § 416.913 (defining the term

“acceptable medical source” to include physicians, but not nurse

practitioners), and that “her opinion is not supported by

objective findings: [Maio’s] muscle tone is normal and range of

motion is full throughout report,” notwithstanding her

6 fibromyalgia and joint pain. Instead, the ALJ relied “primarily”

on D r . Meader’s assessment in concluding that Maio had the

residual functional capacity to perform light work, see id. §

404.1567(b), albeit “limited to simple, repetitive tasks, i.e.

unskilled work.”

Relying on the testimony of a vocational expert, the ALJ

concluded that Maio, while not capable of returning to her past

work as a medical assistant, office manager, or cafeteria worker,

could make an adjustment to other jobs existing in significant

numbers in the national economy, see id. § 404.1520(g), including

small products assembler, assembly machine tender, and escort

through secure areas. The SSA’s Decision Review Board reviewed

the ALJ’s decision and affirmed it without further explanation,

making it the final decision of the Commissioner. See id. §§

405.420(b)(2), 405.440(b)(1).

III. Analysis

Maio argues that the ALJ’s decision was inconsistent with

Johnson, 597 F.3d at 409, a recent case in which the court of

appeals reversed and remanded an ALJ’s decision denying

disability benefits to a claimant diagnosed with fibromyalgia.

In that case, the ALJ rejected a treating physician’s assessment

of disability because, aside from tenderness at the eighteen

trigger points associated with fibromyalgia, there was no

7 “objective” medical evidence to support that assessment. But

“since trigger points are the only ‘objective’ signs of

fibromyalgia,” the court of appeals concluded that the ALJ’s

reasoning “was error.” Id. at 412 (citing Green-Younger v .

Barnhart, 335 F.3d 9 9 , 107 (2d Cir. 2003)). The court explained

that the “lack [of ‘objective’ evidence] is what can be expected

in fibromyalgia cases.” Id. at 414 (citing Rose v . Shalala, 34

F.3d 1 3 , 18-19 (1st Cir. 1994), which reached a similar

conclusion regarding chronic fatigue syndrome).

The ALJ committed essentially the same error in this case,

rejecting Wright’s assessment of disability because it was “not

supported by objective findings,” despite acknowledging that Maio

has tenderness at all eighteen fibromyalgia trigger points (as

found by Wright, D r . Meader, and D r . Libbey). The ALJ

emphasized, in particular, that Maio has a full range of motion

and normal muscle tone. But “physical examinations [of

fibromyalgia patients] will usually yield normal results--a full

range of motion, no joint swelling, as well as normal muscle

strength,” so such findings “simply confirm a diagnosis of

fibromyalgia by a process of exclusion, eliminating other medical

conditions” that could be causing the patient’s pain and fatigue;

they do not indicate “that the patient’s fibromyalgia is not

disabling,” as the ALJ suggested. Green-Younger, 335 F.3d at

108-09 (quotation omitted).

8 The Commissioner argues that this case is distinguishable

from Johnson because the ALJ, in addition to noting the lack of

“objective” evidence, concluded that Wright “is not an acceptable

medical source because she is a nurse.” See 20 C.F.R. § 416.913

(defining the term “acceptable medical source” to include

physicians, but not nurse practitioners, who are classified as

“other medical sources”). But the “ALJ could not simply ignore

[Wright’s] opinion” on that ground. Alcantara v . Astrue, 257

Fed. Appx. 333, 334 (1st Cir. 2007) (unpublished). “Although

acceptable medical sources are the primary sources of evidence

about the severity of impairment and its effect on work

abilities, they are not the sole permissible sources of such

evidence.” Id. (emphasis in original). The ALJ must “weigh all

of the evidence,” including the assessment of any other “medical

source capable of providing evidence about the severity and

effects of impairment.” Id. at 335.

The SSA has issued a ruling to guide ALJs in weighing the

opinions of other medical sources. See SSR 06-03p. Relevant

factors that the ALJ may consider include: (1) “how long the

source has known and how frequently the source has seen the

individual”; (2) “how consistent the opinion is with other

evidence”; (3) “the degree to which the source presents relevant

evidence to support an opinion”; (4) “how well the source

explains the opinion”; and (5) “whether the source has a

9 specialty or area of expertise related to the individual’s

impairment(s).” Id. There was no discussion of those factors in

the ALJ’s analysis of Wright’s assessment (aside from the

erroneous comment about the lack of “objective” evidence). 2 At

least one factor--the length and frequency of treatment--seems to

weigh in favor of Wright’s assessment.

The Commissioner notes, correctly, that “the ALJ is afforded

a substantial amount of discretion” in “deciding which medical

source opinion(s) to credit.” Dumensil v . Astrue, 2010 DNH 135,

13 (McAuliffe, C . J . ) . “But, when exercising such discretion, the

ALJ must ordinarily discuss at least some of his reasons for

accepting one source’s opinion over another’s,” so that the

district court can “determine whether that discretion was

exercised reasonably.” Id. (noting that the extent of discussion

required depends on the particular circumstances). Here, the

sole reason that the ALJ gave for rejecting Wright’s assessment

of disability was one that the court of appeals deemed erroneous

in Johnson: that it was “not supported by objective findings.”

That reasoning is no less erroneous when applied to the

2 The Commissioner argues that the ALJ implicitly considered some of the factors, determining that Wright’s assessment was inconsistent with the findings of D r . Libbey, a specialist in rheumatology, to whose records D r . Meader gave the “[m]ost weight” in his assessment. But this court cannot discern any actual inconsistency between Wright’s assessment and D r . Libbey’s findings, nor did the ALJ or D r . Meader identify one. Again, D r . Libbey made no assessment of Maio’s residual functional capacity. See note 1 , supra.

10 assessments of nurse practitioners than when applied to the

assessments of physicians.

Given that Wright’s assessment was central to Maio’s

disability claim and that the ALJ articulated no reasonable basis

for rejecting i t , this court concludes that the ALJ’s decision

must be reversed and remanded for reconsideration in light of

Johnson.3 This court expresses no opinion about what the outcome

on remand should b e . It is the responsibility of the ALJ, not

this court, to resolve evidentiary conflicts, provided that the

ALJ properly applies the law and that the decision is supported

by substantial evidence in the record. See, e.g., Seavey v .

Barnhart, 276 F.3d 1 , 10 (1st Cir. 2001); Rodriguez v . Sec’y of

Health & Human Servs., 647 F.2d 2 1 8 , 222 (1st Cir. 1981) (citing

Richardson, 402 U.S. at 3 9 9 ) .

3 On remand, the ALJ should also consider whether Johnson has any bearing on the assessment of Maio’s credibility. See, e.g., 597 F.3d at 4 1 2 , 414 (noting that daily activities such as performing basic household chores and driving “are not necessarily inconsistent” with a finding of disability due to fibromyalgia, nor is regular “aerobic exercise . . . of a low- impact type,” which “is the appropriate treatment for fibromyalgia”).

11 IV. Conclusion

Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Maio’s

motion to reverse the Commissioner’s decision4 is GRANTED. The

Commissioner’s motion to affirm that decision5 is DENIED. The

case shall be remanded to the Commissioner for further findings

and/or proceedings consistent with this order. The clerk shall

enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

SO ORDERED.

/€ Joseph N.'Lap'lante Urfited States District Judge District of New Hampshire

Dated: June 7 , 2011

cc: Stephen C . Buckley, Esq. T . David Plourde, Esq., AUSA

4 Document n o . 7 . 5 Document n o . 8 .