https://www.lawofficemelbourne.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/decisions-banner-2.jpg

Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law

After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned makes the following findings:

1. The claimant’s date last insured is December 31, 2012.

2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since January 1, 2011, the amended alleged onset date (20 CFR 404.1520(b), 404.1571 et seq., 416.920(b) and 416.971 et seq.).

3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: obesity; cervical stenosis;
hypertension; diabetes; headaches; cognitive disorder; antisocial personality disorder; and poor visual acuity (20 CFR 404.1520(r) and 416.910(c)).

4. The claimant docs not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926).

The claimant has the following degree of limitation in the broad areas of functioning set out in the disability regulations for evaluating mental disorders and in the mental disorders listings in 20 CFR, Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1: mild restriction in activities of daily living, moderate difficulties maintaining social functioning, moderate difficulties in maintaining concentration, persistence or pace, and no episodes of decompensation, each of extended duration.

5. pounds frequently; stand/walk for six hours in an eight-hour period; and sit for six hour in an eight-hour period. The claimant can occasionally stoop, climb, kneel, crouch, crawl, and balance. He can perform only simple repetitive tasks. He cannot interact with the general public and cannot perform work requiring a rigid time schedule. He cannot work in close coordination with supervisors or co-workers to complete tasks and cannot work around strong odors.

In making this finding, the undersigned considered all symptoms and the extent to which these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and
other evidence, based on the requirements of 20 CFR 404.1529 and 416.929 and SSRs 96-4p and
96-7p. The undersigned has also considered opinion evidence in accordance with the requirements of 20 CFR 404 .1527 and 416.927 and SSRs 96-2p, 96-6p and 06-3p.

The claimant testified that he cannot work due to high blood pressure, diabetes, headaches, and back spasms. He also said that he is 6 feet tall and weighs 312 pounds. He said he can only lift or cars 20 pounds and has difficulty bending and climbing steps. He also testified that he can stand for 20 mins. But then he experiences severe back pain and spasms. He also testified that he has frequent headaches

Similar to the claimant’s allegations, treatment records reflect uncontrolled hypertension despite prescription for Lisinopril. (Exhibits 5F and 11F) These treatment records also reflect persistent posttraumatic headaches following a motor vehicle accident in August 2010. The claimant has been treated with pain and anti-inflammatory medication for sciatic-type pain in his lower extremity and cervicalgia along with numbness and back pain. Diagnostic imagining revealed disc bulging at multiple levels of the claimant’s lumbar spine along with degenerative narrowing and electromyography was consistent with early state polyneuropathy explaining the numbness and sciatica. Considering the claimant’s testimony and the medical evidence including the type and frequency of treatment and the objective findings along with the claimant’s level of daily activities, the undersigned finds the claimant is restricted to light exertional and occasional postural activities

At the hearing, the claimant also described difficulty with his long-term and short-term memory. Following a psychological evaluation in September 2010, Dr. Robert Paulillo noted signs of dementia and antisocial personality disorder. (Exhibit 7F) Dr. Paulillo stated that an interview, observations, and testing reflected significant impairment in memory functioning along with
signs of antisocial personality traits characterized by anger problems and disregard for societal regulations. Provided with these findings, the undersigned finds the claimant is limited to simple tasks and limited interaction with the public, co-workers., and supervisors, as described above.

The claimant also alleged poor vision. In September 2010, the claimant had visual acuity of
20/40 bilaterally. (Exhibit 6F) Subsequent vision testing showed extensive peripheral field loss in her left eye. (Exhibit 15F)

After considering the evidence of record, the undersigned finds that the claimant’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms and that the claimant’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are generally credible.

The State agency medical consultant’s physical assessment is given little weight because evidence received at the hearing level shows that the claimant is more limited than determined by the State agency consultant.

However, the State agency psychological consultant’s mental assessment is given great weight because it is consistent with the record as a whole.

6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work (20 CFR 404.1565 and 416.965).

The vocational expert testified that the claimant has past relevant work as a tractor trailer truck driver, DOT #904.382-010, medium with a svp of 4/semi-skilled, and construction superintendent, DOT # 182.167-026, light with a svp of 7/skilled. Given the residual functional capacity set forth above, the vocational expert testified that the demands of the claimant’s past relevant work exceed his residual functional capacity.

7. Applying the age categories non-mechanically, and considering the additional vocational adversities in this case, the claimant was an individual of advanced age on the established disability onset date (20 CFR 404.1563 and 416.963).

Hallex II-5-3-2 describes -situations in which the Medical- Vocational Guidelines may be applied in borderline age situations. The undersigned finds a non-mechanical application is appropriate in the instant situation because the claimant is within four months of changing age categories and the claimant has additional vocational adversities such as impairments infringing on the
remaining occupational base. Thus, non-mechanically applying age categories is justified.

8. The claimant has at least a high school education and is able to communicate in English (20 CFR 404.1564 and 416.964).

9. The claimant’s acquired job skills do not transfer to other occupations within the residual functional capacity defined above (20 CFR 404.1568 and 416.968).

10. Considering the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there are no jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform (20 CFR 404.1 560(c), 404.1566, 416.960(c), and 41 6.966).

In determining whether a successful adjustment to other work can be made, the undersigned
must consi der the claimants residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience in conjunction with the :lv1eclical-Vocational Guidelines, 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2. If the claimant can perform all or substantially all of the exertional demands at a given level of exertion, the medical -vocational rules direct a conclusion of either “disabled” or ”not disabled” depending upon the claimant’s specific vocational profile (SSR 83-11).

Even if the claimant had the residual functional capacity for the full range of light work, a finding of “disabled” would be directed by Medical -Vocational Rule 202.06.

The Claimant has been under a disability as defined in the Social Security Act since January 1, 2011, the amended alleged onset date of disability (20 CFR 404.152 (g) and 416.920 (g)).

DECISION

Based on the application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits protectively filed on August 6, 2010, the claimant has been disabled under sections 216(i) and 223(d) of the Social Security Act since January 1, 2011.

Based on the application for supplemental security income protectively filed on August 6, 2010, the claimant has been disabled under section 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act since January 1, 2011

The component of the Social Security Administration responsible for authorizing supplemental security income will advise the claimant regarding the non-disability requirements for these payments and if the claimant is eligible, the amount and the months for which payment will be made

Willie L. Rose
Administrative Law Judge

March 28, 2012 Date