A federal judge from the Northern District of Alabama has affirmed an administrative law judge’s decision that NFL Hall of Famer Eric Dickerson is not disabled for purposes of obtaining benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA).
In so ruling, the court found that the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) decision — “which has become the decision of the Commissioner (of the SSA) — is supported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ applied proper legal standards in reaching this determination.”
Dickerson filed applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income benefits on October 24, 2008, alleging “a disability onset date of September 11, 2008 due to blood clots, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and right leg pain.” The SSA denied Dickerson’s applications initially and on reconsideration, prompted Dickerson to request a hearing before an ALJ.
The court noted that to qualify for disability benefits, a claimant must show “the inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairments which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. § 416(I). A physical or mental impairment is “an impairment that results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrated by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(3).
Determination of disability under the Act requires a five step analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)-(f). Specifically, the Commissioner, citing McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026, 1030 (11th Cir. 1986), must determine in sequence:
1. whether the claimant is currently unemployed;
2. whether the claimant has a severe impairment;
3. whether the impairment meets or equals one listed by the Secretary;
4. whether the claimant is unable to perform his or her past work; and
5. whether the claimant is unable to perform any work in the national economy.
“An affirmative answer to any of the above questions leads either to the next question, or, on steps three and five, to a finding of disability. A negative answer to any question, other than step three, leads to a determination of ‘not disabled.'” Id. at 1030 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)-(f)).
In Commissioner’s ruling for the defendant, the court noted that “the ALJ properly applied the five step analysis. The ALJ first determined that Dickerson has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since September 11, 2008, and therefore met Step One. The ALJ also acknowledged that Dickerson’s severe impairments of “recurrent deep vein thrombosis and degenerative disc disease” met Step Two. The ALJ proceeded to the next step and found that Dickerson “failed to meet or equal one of the listed impairments,”
and thus did not satisfy Step Three. Although he answered Step Three in the negative, consistent with the law, the ALJ proceeded to Step Four where he determined that Dickerson has the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work, “except Dickerson can never push or pull with the lower extremities, requires a sit/stand option, can occasionally climb stairs and ramps and can never climb ladders or ropes. Further, Dickerson can frequently balance and stoop, occasionally kneel, crouch and crawl, and should never be exposed to hazardous conditions such as heights and moving machinery. The ALJ, therefore, determined that Dickerson is unable to perform any past relevant work. … (T)he ALJ proceeded to Step Five where he considered Dickerson’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity (RFC) and determined that ‘there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that [Dickerson] can perform.’ Consequently, the ALJ found that Dickerson is not disabled.”
Dickerson appealed the ALJ’s ruling, based on “two contentions of error: (1) that the ALJ failed to find a period of disability of at least 12 months, and (2) that the ALJ’s RFC findings are not based on substantial evidence.”
The federal judge disagreed. “Dickerson stated that back pain … was improved with pain medicine and that he did not expect to need continued use of the drugs,” wrote the judge. “… Moreover, notes from Dickerson’s evaluations for physical therapy and chiropractic care reported expectations of a full recovery and a return to work in, at most, 12 weeks.”
Turning to Dickerson’s RFC, the court found that the ALJ “properly applied a two- step process and found (1) that Dickerson has some impairments that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged pain or other symptoms, but (2) that Dickerson’s statements regarding the severity and limiting effects of these impairments are inconsistent with the medical record.”
Dickerson, however, asserts that the ALJ’s RFC finding is not supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ failed to obtain a medical opinion in the form of a consultative examination and because the ALJ failed to specify the frequency of Dickerson’s need to alternate sitting and standing. Doc. 9 at 7-13. Each contention is addressed below.
Specifically, Dickerson “failed to show that this changed condition is likely to affect his ability to work or that the severity of his condition is unknown. … (T)he medical record does not indicate that these treatments proved ineffective at restoring Dickerson’s ability to perform substantial gainful activity.”
Eric Dickerson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner; N.D. Ala.; Civil Action Number 2:12-cv-0842-AKK, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169445; 11/29/12
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Darryl W Hunt, Marilyn H Macey, ARK JAMES HANLIN & HUNT LLC, Birmingham, AL. (for defendant) Edward Q Ragland, LEAD ATTORNEY, Joyce White Vance, US Attorney, US ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Birmingham, AL; Brian C Huberty, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION-OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, Atlanta, GA.
