United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
Leslie
A. Bowman United States Magistrate Judge
The
plaintiff filed this action for review of the final decision
of the Commissioner for Social Security pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). (Doc. 1, p. 1)
The
Magistrate Judge presides over this case pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c) having received the written consent of
both parties. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 73; (Doc. 12)
The ALJ
found that the claimant's drug addiction was material to
his determination of disability and denied benefits. The
ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence and
free from legal error. It is affirmed.
PROCEDURAL
HISTORY
On May
21, 2015, Ramirez filed an application for disability
insurance benefits pursuant to Title II of the Social
Security Act. (Tr. 109) On May 26, 2015, he filed an
application for supplemental security income pursuant to
Title XVI. (Tr. 110) He alleged disability beginning on
October 20, 2010, due to depression, anxiety, bipolar
disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, and scoliosis. (Tr.
387)
His
applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration.
(Tr. 192-199); (Tr. 202-209) Ramirez requested review and
appeared with counsel at a hearing before Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) Laura Havens on July 20, 2017. (Tr. 47) At that
hearing, the ALJ decided that she needed testimony from a
medical expert. (Tr. 79-81) On November 8, 2017, Ramirez
appeared with counsel at a second hearing, this time before
ALJ Charles Davis. (Tr. 84) The ALJ received testimony from
medical expert Joseph Malancharuvil, M.D., vocational expert
Robin Scher, and the claimant. (Tr. 84) In his decision,
dated April 3, 2018, ALJ Davis found that Ramirez was not
eligible for benefits because if he stopped his substance
abuse he would be able to work. (Tr. 30) Ramirez appealed,
but on February 12, 2019, the Appeals Council denied review
making the decision of the ALJ the final decision of the
Commissioner. (Tr. 1-4) Ramirez subsequently filed this
action appealing that final decision. (Doc. 1)
Claimant's
Work History and Medical History
Ramirez
was born in July of 1983. (Tr. 50) He was 34 years old when
the ALJ issued his decision in April of 2018. (Tr. 32, 34) He
has a GED. (Tr. 50)
Ramirez
has worked at a number of jobs, but he struggles to stay
employed. (Tr. 51-52, 68, 89) He suffers from depression and
anxiety. (Tr. 68) He also has substance abuse problems. (Tr.
87)
In
2017, Ramirez worked for Walmart for almost six months, but
when he found out that his ex-girlfriend was with somebody
else, he became depressed and “didn't get out of
bed for a couple of days.” (Tr. 52, 372) In 2016, he
worked for Marriott doing room service for three months. (Tr.
53, 366) Before that, in 2015, he worked at a call center for
four months. (Tr. 54) In 2010, he worked at Taco Bell for
about a year. (Tr. 54) Ramirez's alleged disability onset
date is October 20, 2010. (Tr. 387) From 1999 to 2001, he
worked for the Pima County Parks and Recreation department as
a groundskeeper, but he explained that his father got him the
job and helped him to keep it. (Tr. 56, 107, 362)
At the
hearing, medical expert Joseph Malancharuvil, M.D., testified
that Ramirez has mood disorder aggravated by drug use,
personality disorder with anti-social features, and mixed
substance abuse disorder. (Tr. 87) He is moderately limited
in his ability to understand, remember, apply information,
interact with others, concentrate, and persist or maintain
pace. (Tr. 88) His ability to adapt or manage himself is
markedly limited. (Tr. 88) Malancharuvil further opined that
if Ramirez were to become sober, he would be only mildly
limited in his ability to understand, remember or apply
information, interact with others, concentrate, and persist
or maintain pace. (Tr. 89) His ability to adapt or manage
himself would be mildly to moderately limited. (Tr. 89) He
could perform moderately complex tasks but could not operate
hazardous or fast-moving machinery. (Tr. 89) He should not be
in a job that requires constant interaction with the public.
(Tr. 89-90)
Vocational
expert Robin Scher testified at the hearing that someone with
the claimant's age and vocational and educational
background, with no exertional limitations but limited to
“work that involves up to four to five-step
instructions, no workplace hazards such as moving mechanical
machinery, [] no fast-paced work [] and occasional
interaction with the public, coworkers or supervisors on a
superficial work basis, ” could work in Ramirez's
previous job as a groundskeeper. (Tr. 100) (punctuation
modified) In the alternative, such a person could work as a
marker, DOT #209.587-034, routing clerk, DOT #222.687-022, or
day worker, DOT #301.687-014. (Tr. 100-101)
Medical
...