Baker v. Barnhart ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                         NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
    File Name: 06a0377n.06
    Filed: May 26, 2006
    No. 05-3672
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
    GWENDOLYN BAKER,                                         )
    )
    Plaintiff-Appellant,                              )
    )
    v.                                                       )    ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
    )    STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
    )    THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
    JO ANN BARNHART, COMMISSIONER             OF   SOCIAL    )    OHIO
    SECURITY,                                                )
    )
    Defendant-Appellee.                               )
    Before: MARTIN, SILER, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.
    SILER, Circuit Judge. Claiming numerous physical and psychological impairments,
    Gwendolyn Baker applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits. An Administrative Law
    Judge (ALJ) found she was not disabled, and the Appeals Council denied review. Later, the district
    court affirmed the decision of the ALJ, and Baker appealed. Because substantial evidence
    supported the ALJ’s decision, we affirm.
    I. Factual Background
    Baker is a high school graduate and a licensed practical nurse (LPN), and has training as a
    paralegal. She worked as a home health aide assisting a quadriplegic patient until December 2000,
    when she could no longer perform the lifting requirements of the job. Baker has an extensive
    medical history, both physical and psychological, that has affected her ability to perform her relevant
    past work. She suffers from many physical impairments, including (but not limited to) the
    No. 05-3672
    Baker v. Barnhart
    following:    pulmonary impairment (asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease);
    fibromyalgia; restless leg syndrome; esophagitis; allergies; back pain; arthritis in one knee; difficulty
    gripping; gall stones; and ulcers.
    In addition to her various physical ailments, Baker also claims disability as a result of mental
    illness. Her records refer to depression, and she has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Although
    a mental status examination found Baker to have “major depressive disorder, recurrent, and without
    psychotic features, and a pain disorder associated with both psychological factors and a general
    medical condition,” Baker still could understand, follow, and remember instructions and directions,
    could sufficiently perform repetitive tasks, and had a moderately limited ability to deal with stress.
    Vocational expert Larry Bell testified as to the types of jobs available to a person with
    Baker’s vocational profile and restrictions. He opined that she could perform routine, repetitive
    tasks with minimal public contact. He concluded that there were many file clerk and mail clerk jobs
    nationally that would fit this profile.
    The only ailments the ALJ decided reached the status of “severe” were Baker’s bipolar
    disorder, fibromyalgia, allergies, and asthma. Her other ailments failed to reach the level of severe
    because they did not effectively interfere with her ability to work. Of the severe illnesses, both the
    asthma and allergies were under control, and the fibromyalgia did not meet the required severity of
    any listing because she was performing activities such as cooking, driving, watching television, and
    performing household chores. In addition, he found her mental illness did not meet a listing.
    Finally, he concluded that despite her condition, Baker remained capable of performing light work
    that is routine, repetitive, low stress, and not dealing with people.
    -2-
    No. 05-3672
    Baker v. Barnhart
    II. Analysis
    A. Standard of Review
    Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision is
    limited to determining whether her findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether she
    employed the proper legal standards. Richardson v. Perales, 
    402 U.S. 389
    , 401 (1971).
    B. Substantial Evidence Supported the Commissioner’s Conclusion
    The primary consideration on appeal is whether the Commissioner’s decision was supported
    by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.               Baker complains that the
    Commissioner did not have substantial evidence upon which to deny her Social Security benefits,
    and identifies a number of alleged errors in his analysis of her claims.
    Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. ' 404.1520(a)-(e), the plaintiff’s Social Security disability
    determination was made according to a five step sequential analysis. Walters v. Comm’r of Soc.
    Sec., 
    127 F.3d 525
    , 529 (6th Cir. 1997). The five required steps can be summarized as follows:
    1)      If claimant is doing substantial gainful activity, she is not disabled.
    2)      If claimant is not doing substantial gainful activity, her impairment
    must be severe before she can be found to be disabled.
    3)      If claimant is not doing substantial gainful activity and is suffering
    from a severe impairment that has lasted or is expected to last for a
    continuous period of at least twelve months, and her impairment
    meets or equals a listed impairment, claimant is presumed disabled
    without further inquiry.
    4)      If claimant’s impairment does not prevent her from doing her past
    relevant work, she is not disabled.
    -3-
    No. 05-3672
    Baker v. Barnhart
    5)     Even if claimant’s impairment does prevent her from doing her past
    relevant work, if other work exists in the national economy that
    accommodates her residual functional capacity and vocational factors
    (age, education, skills, etc.), she is not disabled.
    
    Id. (citing 20
    C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1997)). The claimant has the burden of proof in steps one through
    four. 
    Id. Upon plaintiff’s
    showing of the first four steps, the burden of proof shifts to the
    Commissioner to consider her residual functional capacity, age, education and past work experience
    to determine if she could perform other work. If not, she would be deemed disabled. 20 C.F.R. '
    404.1520(f). The Commissioner has the burden of proof only on Athe fifth step, proving that there
    is work available in the economy that the claimant can perform.@ Her v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 
    203 F.3d 388
    , 391 (6th Cir. 1999). To meet this burden, the Commissioner must make a finding
    Asupported by substantial evidence that [the claimant] has the vocational qualifications to perform
    specific jobs.@ Varley v. Sec=y of Health and Human Servs., 
    820 F.2d 777
    , 779 (6th Cir. 1987)
    (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This Asubstantial evidence@ may be in the form of
    vocational expert testimony in response to a hypothetical question, Abut only >if the question
    accurately portrays [the claimant=s] individual physical and mental impairments.=@ 
    Id. (citations omitted).
    The ALJ went through all five steps in making his determination. First, Baker was not
    engaged in substantial gainful employment. Although the ALJ did find she had four severe
    impairments, none of them met a listed impairment. Baker demonstrated that she was not able to
    perform her past relevant work, shifting the burden to the Commissioner to show that other work
    exists in the national economy that Baker could perform. The Commissioner met this burden
    -4-
    No. 05-3672
    Baker v. Barnhart
    through the testimony of the vocational expert, who testified that work exists in the national
    economy that accommodates Baker’s RFC and vocational factors. Therefore, the ALJ found that
    she is not disabled.
    Substantial evidence in the record supports this determination. In August 2001, Baker was
    examined for both physical and mental impairments. Dr. William D. Padamadam, although unable
    to find signs of rheumatological problems or fibromyalgia trigger points, diagnosed Baker with
    fibromyalgia syndrome with depression and irritability. One month later, Dr. Walter H. Holbrook
    agreed with the fibromyalgia diagnosis but also noted that most of her symptoms were
    psychologically based and concluded that Baker could carry up to 50 pounds, stand or walk, and sit
    for six hours a workday. Also in August 2001, David Bousquet, M. Ed., found that Baker was only
    mildly to moderately impaired in her ability to relate to others, a finding that was confirmed by
    Robert L. Gaffey, Ph.D. Additionally, a psychologist determined that Baker could make adequate
    adaptations in the work place and relate to others on a superficial basis. The vocational expert
    testified at Baker’s administrative hearing that there were approximately 450,000 clerk jobs
    nationwide available to someone with Baker’s vocational profile, including restrictions.
    AFFIRMED.
    -5-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-3672

Judges: Martin, Siler, Clay

Filed Date: 5/26/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024