Julie Morr v. Commissioner of SS
Filing
OPINION filed: The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, decision not for publication. Gilbert S. Merritt (authoring), Circuit Judge; Martha Craig Daughtrey, Circuit Judge and Richard Allen Griffin, Circuit Judge.
Case: 15-3333
Document: 16-2
Filed: 10/09/2015
Page: 1
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 15a0689n.06
Case No. 15-3333
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
FILED
JULIE ANN MORR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________________________/
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Oct 09, 2015
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
OHIO
Before: MERRITT, DAUGHTREY, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.
MERRITT, Circuit Judge. In this action seeking Social Security disability benefits, the
parties agree that the claimant, Ms. Julie Ann Morr, born in 1959, must show that she
was disabled from working between May 1, 1998, her alleged disability onset date, and
June 30, 2007, her date last insured. The process involves both extensive administrative and
judicial review. Her case has been reviewed five times before the present appeal. She applied
for benefits on June 20, 2010, was denied administratively on August 26, 2010, again denied by
the Administrative Law Judge two years later after an evidentiary hearing, then by the Appeals
Council in May 2013, followed by denial of her federal civil action by the Magistrate Judge in
August 2014, and again by the federal district judge on January 26, 2015.
Case: 15-3333
Document: 16-2
Filed: 10/09/2015
Page: 2
Case No. 15-3333, Morr v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.
Plaintiff presents two issues for review on appeal:
1. Whether the ALJ erred in not giving treating physician’s opinion controlling weight?
2. Whether the ALJ employed disapproved boilerplate credibility language, and then
conducted a backward credibility analysis that failed to identify and analyze specific material
statements or testimony in relation to credibility?
Judge Carr in his district court opinion decided the same two issues correctly, and we
adopt his conclusions and reasoning, as follows:
A. Issue 1: Controlling Weight
Morr asserts the ALJ failed to give controlling weight to the following
opinions from Morr’s treating physician, Dr. Kolovich: 1) his February 18, 2002,
opinion that Morr would be able to return to work for four hours per day at a sitdown job; 2) his August 5, 2002, opinion that Morr would benefit from a sit-down
job; and 3) his November 11, 2004, opinion that “I doubt that [Morr] would be
able to return to work at this time.”
“An ALJ must give the opinion of a treating source controlling weight if
he finds the opinion ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and
laboratory diagnostic techniques’ and ‘not inconsistent with the other substantial
evidence in the case record.’” Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544
(6th Cir. 2004) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)) (internal quotes omitted).
Contrariwise, a treating source’s opinion may be given little weight if it is
unsupported by sufficient clinical findings and is inconsistent with the rest of the
evidence. Bogle v. Sullivan, 998 F.2d 342, 347-48 (6th Cir. 1993).
If an ALJ decides to give a treating source’s opinion less than controlling
weight, she must give “good reasons” for doing so that are sufficiently specific to
make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight given to the treating
physician’s opinion and the reasons for that weight. See Wilson, supra, 378 F.3d
at 544 (quoting Social Security Ruling 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, #5).
The ALJ did not err in failing to give Dr. Kolovich’s opinions controlling
weight or providing good reasons for rejecting them. This is because Dr.
Kolovich’s three opinions are not opinions of a medical condition, but rather are
opinions of disability that are reserved for the ALJ. 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(1)
(“We are responsible for making the determination or decision whether you meet
the statutory definition of disability. . . . A statement by a medical source that
your [sic] ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ does not mean that we will determine
that you are disabled.”).
-2-
Case: 15-3333
Document: 16-2
Filed: 10/09/2015
Page: 3
Case No. 15-3333, Morr v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.
....
There is no evidence in the record that Dr. Kolovich ever rendered an
opinion regarding Morr’s RFC or assigned Morr specific functional limitations.
The only opinions Dr. Kolovich rendered were generalized doubts regarding
Morr’s ability to work. As such, the ALJ did not err in failing to give Dr.
Kolovich’s opinions controlling weight, as the ALJ was not required to defer to
Dr. Kolovich’s statements regarding disability.
As to the second issue, counsel for Morr in his appellate brief in this court provides only
two brief paragraphs of generalities—paragraphs that do not answer the conclusions of the
district court, as follows:
B. Issue 2: Assessment of Morr’s Credibility
Morr also asserts the ALJ erred in evaluating Morr’s credibility.
Credibility determinations regarding a claimant’s subjective complaints rest with
the ALJ, and are entitled to considerable deference. Siterlet v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., 823 F.2d 918, 920 (6th Cir. 1987); Villarreal v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., 818 F.2d 461, 463 (6th Cir. 1987).
....
The ALJ appropriately found Morr was capable of performing a limited
range of light work in spite of Morr’s limitations. The evidence demonstrates
Morr reported good activities of daily living and had very little medical treatment
between her alleged onset date and her date last insured.
Moreover, Morr testified she probably could have worked two years ago.
Furthermore, after her knee surgery in 2002, she continued to work. After the
date last insured, Morr had surgery on her left knee, which caused her to be
placed on a walker and a cane by her doctor.
Additionally, Morr’s alleged medical complaints are not supported by
medical findings and they are contradicted by medical doctors, the assessments of
the consultative examiner, the vocational expert’s testimony, and Morr’s own
activities including providing for her own personal grooming, cleaning, cooking
daily for up to an hour, watching television, washing dishes three time daily,
doing laundry, caring for cats, and driving. . . .
Accordingly, the ALJ did not provide boilerplate language in assessing
Morr’s credibility. The ALJ specifically compared Morr’s alleged health
symptoms to other evidence in the record and found Morr’s subjective complaints
were inconsistent with the objective medical evidence in the record. Such
inconsistency is an appropriate basis for an adverse credibility finding. See
Walters v. Comm’r of Social Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 531 (6th Cir. 1997) (When an
-3-
Case: 15-3333
Document: 16-2
Filed: 10/09/2015
Page: 4
Case No. 15-3333, Morr v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.
ALJ finds contradictions among medical reports, the claimant’s testimony, and
other evidence, discounting credibility is appropriate).
Consequently, the ALJ appropriately evaluated Morr’s credibility.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 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?