Tracy Russell v. Commissioner of Social Sec
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:10-cv-00005-jpj-pms. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998637908]. [10-2348]
Appeal: 10-2348
Document: 18
Date Filed: 07/22/2011
Page: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2348
TRACY BRUNER RUSSELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap.
James P. Jones,
District Judge. (2:10-cv-00005-jpj-pms)
Submitted:
June 30, 2011
Decided:
July 22, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hugh F. O’Donnell, CLIENT CENTERED LEGAL SERVICES OF SOUTHWEST
VIRGINIA, Norton, Virginia, for Appellant.
Eric P. Kressman,
Regional Chief Counsel, Victor Pane, Supervisory Attorney,
Jordana Cooper, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Timothy J. Heaphy, United States
Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 10-2348
Document: 18
Date Filed: 07/22/2011
Page: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Tracy
order
Bruner
granting
judgment
the
motion
Commissioner’s
in
Russell
appeals
Commissioner
Russell’s
decision
of
the
Social
district
court’s
Security’s
summary
action
seeking
her
disability
denying
review
of
the
insurance
and
supplemental security income benefits under the Social Security
Act (“the Act”).
On appeal, Russell raises only one issue–
whether the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in rejecting
the opinion of her treating rheumatologist regarding her ability
to work.
Finding no error, we affirm.
“[W]e review de novo the district court’s award of
summary
judgment,
viewing
the
facts
and
the
reasonable
inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party.”
Cir. 2008).
Emmett v. Johnson, 532 F.3d 291, 297 (4th
Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(a).
Additionally, we review the denial of benefits under
the Act to ensure that the ALJ’s findings of fact “are supported
by substantial evidence and [that] the correct law was applied.”
Hays
v.
Sullivan,
907
F.2d
1453,
1456
(4th
Cir.
Substantial evidence is “more than a mere scintilla.
such
relevant
evidence
as
a
reasonable
adequate to support a conclusion.”
2
mind
might
1990).
It means
accept
as
Richardson v. Perales, 402
Appeal: 10-2348
Document: 18
Date Filed: 07/22/2011
Page: 3 of 4
U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We
will not reweigh the evidence or make credibility determinations
because
those
functions
are
left
to
the
ALJ.
Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005).
evidence
allows
reasonable
minds
to
Johnson
v.
“Where conflicting
differ
as
to
whether
a
claimant is disabled, the responsibility for that decision falls
on the [ALJ].”
Id. (alteration in original) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
An ALJ is required to weigh medical opinions based on:
“(1) whether the physician has examined the applicant, (2) the
treatment relationship between the physician and the applicant,
(3)
the
supportability
of
the
physician’s
opinion,
(4)
the
consistency of the opinion with the record, and (5) whether the
physician
is
a
§ 404.1527 (2005)).
to
the
Id.
specialist.”
testimony
at
654
(citing
20
C.F.R.
While “[c]ourts often accord greater weight
of
a
treating
physician,”
id.
(internal
quotation marks omitted), the ALJ is not required to do so “if a
physician’s opinion is not supported by clinical evidence or if
it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence.”
Chater,
76
F.3d
585,
590
(4th
§ 404.1527(d)(2).
If
the
ALJ
physician’s
opinion
controlling
Cir.
does
1996);
not
weight,
see
give
she
Craig v.
20
the
must
C.F.R.
treating
“give
good
reasons in [her] notice of determination or decision for the
weight
[she]
give[s]
[the]
treating
C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).
3
source’s
opinion.”
20
Appeal: 10-2348
Document: 18
Date Filed: 07/22/2011
Page: 4 of 4
Upon review, we conclude that the ALJ did not err in
discounting
In
her
the
opinion
decision,
the
of
Russell’s
ALJ
noted
treating
that
rheumatologist.
Russell
saw
the
rheumatologist, Dr. Morris, infrequently, and had not seen him
for
six
months
assessment.
opinion
prior
to
his
filling
out
the
disability
The decision further explains that Dr. Morris’s
about
Russell’s
disability
was
not
supported
treatment notes or by other information in the file.
his
assessment
limited
use
improving
form
of
her
with
precluded
hands,
treatment
Russell
his
and
notes
his
from
opinion
is
his
Although
working
indicate
by
that
due
she
unsupported
to
was
by
medical tests or other evidence.
On Russell’s last visit to Dr.
Morris
of
prior
to
his
assessment
her
ability
to
work,
Dr.
Morris noted that Russell had no active synovitis and had the
full
range
of
motion
in
her
hands.
These
notes
constitute
substantial evidence sufficient to allow the ALJ to discount Dr.
Morris’s disability assessment.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of
summary judgment for the Commissioner.
We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?