Kinnex v. Colvin
Filing
22
ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner is VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this Order. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. (See document for further details). Signed by Magistrate Judge David K Duncan on 4/3/17. (LAD)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Debra M. Kinnex,
No. CV-16-8017-PCT-DKD
Plaintiff,
10
11
v.
12
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
13
ORDER
Defendant.
14
15
16
Debra Kinnex appeals from the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision to
17
adopt the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) ruling denying her claim for Social Security
18
Disability Insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income Disability benefits. On
19
appeal, Kinnex argues that she is entitled to benefits because the ALJ incorrectly
20
discounted her treating physician’s opinion, incorrectly discounted her testimony, and
21
misapplied the Vocational Expert’s testimony. (Doc. 18) This Court has jurisdiction
22
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and, with the parties’ consent to Magistrate Judge
23
jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). As described below, the Court remands this
24
matter for further proceedings.
25
BACKGROUND
26
Born in 1957, Kinnex filed applications for Social Security Disability Insurance
27
and Supplemental Security Income benefits alleging a disability onset date of July 12,
28
2012.
(Tr. 213-15, 216-25)
She alleged disability from osteoporosis, lumbar
1
compression fractures, and degenerative disc disease of the lumbar and thoracic spine.
2
(Tr. 21, 211-25, 258-59) She has an 11th grade education and her past work experience
3
was as a bartender, stock clerk, stock control supervisor, waitress, driver, and office
4
clerk. (Tr. 41, 63-65)
5
Medical Evidence1
6
On June 29, 2012,2 Kinnex established care with Benjamin H. Venger, M.D., at
7
TriState Pain Institute, to manage her spinal pain, identify the pain generator, and
8
maintain her pain medication. (Tr. at 430) On physical examination of her lumbosacral
9
spine, Dr. Venger noted trigger points at the upper outer quadrant of the buttocks,
10
bilateral paraspinal muscle tenderness, mild spasm, mild pain with extension or axial
11
loading, and minimal bilateral discomfort with lateral bending. (Tr. 433) He noted that
12
her range of motion was normal for her age, her paraspinal muscle strength and tone were
13
within normal limits, and her straight leg raise test was bilaterally negative. (Tr. 433-34)
14
Finally, he noted that Kinnex had a slightly broad-based gait and that she was able to
15
walk without the assistance of an orthosis, could stand without difficulty, and had an
16
upright posture. (Tr. 434)
17
Subsequently, Kinnex used an over-the-counter lumbar brace without any relief.
18
(Tr. 443) Accordingly, Dr. Venger fitted her for a specialty lumbar brace and ordered a
19
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. (Tr. 447) For the L2 vertebra, MRI imaging
20
showed mild compression deformity of the vertebral body with approximately 30% to
21
40% loss of vertebral height, some patchy bone marrow edema, and a slight degree of
22
posterior retropulsion.
23
deformity and some patchy bone marrow edema. Finally, for the L4 vertebra, the MRI
24
showed a moderate compression fracture with approximately 60% loss of vertebral
For the L3 vertebra, MRI imaging showed a mild concave
25
1
26
This discussion is limited to the issues raised by Kinnex in this Court.
2
27
28
In May 2012, prior to her alleged onset date, Kinnex presented to the emergency
room twice for lower back pain. (Tr. 331-34; 396-97) Subsequently, she was treated at
Riverview Wellness Center where she was referred to Dr. Venger for pain management.
(Tr. 620-21) The ALJ decision stated that Kinnex was also referred for joint complaints
and generalized limb pain. (Compare Tr. 26 with Tr. 430) This is harmless error.
-2-
1
height, diffuse patchy bone marrow edema, and small subligamentous disk protrusion
2
over the L4-L5 area. (Tr. 450-52)
3
Subsequently, Dr. Venger performed a vertebroplasty on Kinnex’s back at the L2,
4
L3, and L4 vertebrae. (Tr. 462-65) In her first follow-up visit, she stated that her pain
5
was “slowly improving following her procedure” and that she could “ambulat[e] well
6
without any significant pain.” (Tr. 467) She also stated that pain medications covered
7
41-50% of her current discomfort and that her pain level average was 7 out of 10. (Tr.
8
466). At her second follow-up visit on August 3, 2012, she reported that her pain had
9
improved on the inside of her back but she was experiencing more pain on the outside of
10
her back, that she was careful when standing and walking, and that she could “handle the
11
pain” because of the pain medication. (Tr. 473) She acknowledged a 70-80% pain
12
reduction from her medication and claimed that her pain level was about 8 out of 10. (Tr.
13
at 472)
14
On August 16, 2012, Kinnex stated that her pain medication covered about 31-
15
40% of her pain, that her daily pain average was 7 out of 10, and reported new pain in her
16
upper lumbar region. (Tr. 482, 484) In response to her report of new myofacial thoracic
17
pain, Dr. Venger performed trigger point injections on her mid- and lower thoracic
18
iliocostalis muscles and ordered updated x-rays. (Tr. 478)
19
showed a Schmorl node involving the superior endplate of a lower thoracic vertebral
20
body, no significant wedge compression deformities, very mild degenerative changes, no
21
large osteophytes, and some mild scattered intervertebral disc narrowing. (Tr. 392) The
22
lumbar spine x-ray showed mild compression deformities at L2 and L3, a moderate
23
compression deformity at L4, an approximate vertebral height loss of 50% of L4, no
24
evidence of retropulsion, generalized osteopenia, and mild degenerative changes of facet
25
joints. (Tr. 393)
26
27
The thoracic spine x-ray
On August 20, 2012, Kinnex told a health care provider at Riverview Wellness
that she thought her vertebroplasty had alleviated her back pain. (Tr. 619)
28
-3-
1
On September 20, 2012, Kinnex stated that her pain medication covered about 41-
2
50% of her pain and that her daily pain averaged 8 out of 10. (Tr. 494) She reported
3
excruciating pain in her lumbar and sacral spine but relief from the earlier procedures in
4
her thoracic spine. (Tr. 495, 498)
5
On October 18, 2012, Kinnex stated that her medications had given her 60-70%
6
relief but that her pain is worse. (Tr. 505) She complained of abdominal and lumbar
7
pain and so Dr. Venger performed another set of trigger point injections. (Tr. 502)
8
On November 21, 2012, Kinnex complained of more back pain but was not sure if
9
her pain was from her back or her kidneys. (Tr. 511) She indicated that her pain
10
medication covered about 61-70% of her pain with an average level of pain at 7 out of 10.
11
(Tr. 510) On December 28, 2012, Kinnex reported that her pain medication covered
12
about 61-70% of her pain and that the pain averaged 5 out of 10. (Tr. 516) On January
13
24, 2013 and February 22, 2013, she stated that her pain medication covered about 91-
14
100% of her pain and that the pain averaged 6 out of 10. (Tr. 530, 536)
15
On January 31, 2013,3 Dr. Venger completed a Residual Functional Capacity
16
Questionnaire. (Tr. 318-19) He stated that Kinnex could sit for 20 minutes at a time for
17
a total of two hours in an eight hour work day and that she would take four or five
18
unscheduled 10-15 minute work breaks per day. (Tr. 318) He stated that she could
19
frequently lift less than 10 pounds and occasionally lift 10 pounds, she would be absent
20
more than four times a month from work, and that she was not a malingerer. (Tr. 319)
21
The record is not clear that Dr. Venger treated Kinnex between March and May
22
2013. Documentation of monthly visits resumes in June 2013 and her treatment appears
23
to be only medication management. (Tr. 543) In July 2013, she reported to Dr. Venger
24
that her pain medication covers 71-80% of her pain and that her pain level was “so bad
25
3
26
27
28
Dr. Venger dated the Questionnaire on “1/31/12.” (Tr. 319) Dr. Venger began
to treat June 29, 2012, and this form was submitted to the Defendant in March 2013. (Tr.
317) Accordingly, it appears safe to assume that the form was completed on January 31,
2013, and that Dr. Venger simply misdated the form, a frequent typographical error that
occurs in the new year. This conclusion is also bolstered by noting that the Questionnaire
is a form from Myler Disability and Kinnex hired Brad Myler to represent her in
December 2012. (Tr. 122-23)
-4-
1
that even with the medication she [wa]s up 4-5 times a night. She [wa]s not able to sit,
2
stand, or lay down for any length of time.” (Tr. 544-45) In August, September, October,
3
November, December 2013 and January, February, March, April, May, June, July,
4
August 2014, Kinnex reported to Dr. Venger that medication covered 61-70% of her pain
5
but she variously reported that her pain levels had either remained the same (August,
6
September October, November, and December 2013; January, May, and August 2014),
7
were slightly worse (April 2014), or worse (February, March, June, and July 2014). (Tr.
8
544-45, 555-56, 561-62, 568-69, 573-74, 579-80, 585-86, 591-92, 597-98, 627-28, 635-
9
36, 641-42)
10
In April 2014, Kinnex told Dr. Venger that, due to financial considerations, she
11
was only interested in medication management. (Tr. 565) In May 2014, Dr. Venger
12
completed another Residual Functional Capacity Questionnaire that was essentially
13
identical to the previous Questionnaire he completed. (Tr. 624-25) In July 2014, he
14
performed a medial branch nerve block and she subsequently reported that the procedure
15
had relieved approximately half of her pain. (Tr. 628, 633
16
Kinnex Self-Evaluations
17
On March 12, 2013, Kinnex filled out a self-evaluation form of her symptoms and
18
limitations. (Tr. 266-73) She stated that she could “not walk too long, sit too long, or
19
stand too long.” (Tr. 266) She also stated that she needed a cane to walk around and she
20
acknowledged that the cane had not been prescribed. (Tr. 272) Kinnex filled out a
21
second self-evaluation on August 26, 2013. She described her symptoms in the same
22
way as in her previous self-evaluation and acknowledged that she still did not have a
23
prescription for her cane. (Tr. at 289-96)
24
State’s Agency Evaluations
25
On March 27, 2013, the Commissioner’s medical consultants reviewed Kinnex’s
26
applications for disability benefits and supplemental income and her medical record, and
27
concluded that she was physically capable of performing work at the light exertional
28
-5-
1
level.4 (Tr. at 80-97) On subsequent review, the medical consultants reviewed her
2
updated medical record and affirmed their earlier conclusion that she was capable of
3
performing work at the light exertional level. (Tr. 100-121)
4
Hearing
5
At the administrative hearing, Kinnex testified that she had been working as a
6
bartender and waitress but had to quit working due to her back pain. (Tr. 44) She
7
testified that she could sit about an hour per day comfortably and then would have to get
8
up to alleviate the pain. (Tr. 52) She testified that she drove herself to the hearing, that
9
her pain woke her up at night, that her pain medication helped but did not completely
10
alleviate the pain, and acknowledged that she had received several injections and
11
procedures. (Tr. 40, 44, 46) She confirmed that her pain medication brought her pain
12
down from a 7 or 8 to a 4 or 5 (out of 10). (Tr. 49) She testified that she lived with her
13
husband who did all the cooking for her, that she could vacuum with a small vacuum, and
14
could wash dishes standing for twenty minutes at a time before lying down. (Tr. 54-55)
15
She also testified that she could go to the store for a quick trip, lift and carry five to ten
16
pounds, and drive up to 30 minutes. (Tr. 53, 56) However, she could not dance anymore
17
and spent most of her days lying on the couch watching television and crocheting. (Tr.
18
59-60)
19
The vocational expert (VE), Kathryn Atha, testified that Kinnex would not be able
20
to perform any of her past relevant work if her postural limitations were at “occasional.”
21
(Tr. 67) VE Atha testified that Kinnex had acquired simple clerical skills in her previous
22
work as a stock control supervisor5 and that these skills could be transferred to sedentary
23
work. (Tr. 66, 74-75) VE Atha testified that “[t]here would be no past relevant work that
24
25
26
27
4
The medical consultants concluded that Dr. Venger’s Questionnaire was
completed before he had started to treat Kinnex and appear to have used that conclusion
to justify discounting his opinion. As noted earlier, the Court concludes that this was
nothing more nefarious than a typographical error.
5
28
She originally concluded that Kinnex had acquired transferrable clerical skills
from her previous position as an office clerk but, after further testimony from Kinnex,
modified her conclusion. (Tr. 68, 71-74)
-6-
1
would be appropriate with occasional posturals.” (Tr. 67) However, with sedentary
2
posturals, there were three positions that would be appropriate: receptionist, appointment
3
clerk, and telephone solicitor. (Tr. at 68-69) However, an employee who needed to sit or
4
stand every 20 to 30 minutes would not be able to work in these positions. (Tr. 75-76)
5
Administrative Law Judge Decision
6
The ALJ’s decision followed the requisite five step process. (Tr. 21-30) First, the
7
ALJ concluded that Kinnex had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since her
8
alleged onset date and that her spine disorder was a severe impairment but it did not meet
9
or medically equal the severity of any of the listed impairments in the Social Security
10
Rules. (Tr. 23-24)
11
Next, the ALJ concluded that Kinnex had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”)
12
to perform sedentary work except that she was limited to occasional postural activities
13
and could only sit for two hours and would then need to stand. (Tr. 24) To justify this
14
RFC, the ALJ reviewed Kinnex’s hearing testimony, her self-report, and her medical
15
treatment to conclude that she was not fully credible about her spine disorder. (Tr. 25)
16
Specifically, the ALJ noted that Kinnex’s self-report stated that she needed a cane to
17
walk but Dr. Venger’s medical records indicated that she did not need assistance to walk.
18
(Tr. 25) The ALJ noted that taking Kinnex’s self-described limitations at face value was
19
difficult “in view of the relatively benign medical evidence.”
20
concluded that Kinnex had “not generally received the type of medical treatment that one
21
would expect from a totally disabled individual” and that her “treatment and medications
22
have been relatively effective in controlling [her] symptoms.” (Tr. 25) The ALJ further
23
noted that Kinnex had provided inconsistent reports on the severity of her symptoms and
24
the amount of relief she obtained from medication. (Tr. 25)
(Tr. 25)
The ALJ
25
The ALJ gave little weight to the opinion expressed by Dr. Venger in his two RFC
26
Questionnaires because they were “brief, conclusory, and inadequately supported by the
27
clinical findings.” (Tr. 27) Specifically, she noted that “Dr. Venger’s own treatment
28
records [did] not document any significant abnormalities” and that, instead, he
-7-
1
“apparently relied quite heavily on the subjective report of symptoms and limitations
2
provided by the claimant and seemed to uncritically accept as true most, if not all, of
3
what [Kinnex] reported.” (Tr. 27) In light of the ALJ’s conclusion that Kinnex was not
4
fully credible, the ALJ found Dr. Venger’s opinion less persuasive. (Tr. 27)
5
The ALJ reviewed the State agency medical consultants’ opinion that Kinnex
6
could still perform light work and concluded that Kinnex had more limitations. (Tr. 27-
7
28) The ALJ adopted VE Atha’s testimony that Kinnex could not perform her past
8
relevant work but that she had acquired transferable work skills from her past relevant
9
work and could transfer these skills to jobs that exist in significant numbers in the
10
national economy, namely receptionist, appointment clerk, and telephone solicitor. (Tr.
11
28-29) Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that Kinnex was not disabled. (Tr. 29-30)
12
STANDARD OF REVIEW
13
This court must affirm the ALJ’s findings if they are supported by substantial
14
evidence and are free from reversible error. Marcia v. Sullivan, 900 F.2d 172, 174 (9th
15
Cir. 1990).
16
preponderance; it is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
17
adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). In
18
determining whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision, the court
19
considers the record as a whole, weighing both the evidence that supports and that which
20
detracts from the ALJ’s conclusions. Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir.
21
1988).
22
credibility. Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995); Magallanes v.
23
Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989). Thus, the Court must affirm the ALJ’s
24
decision where the evidence considered in its entirety substantially supports it and the
25
decision is free from reversible error. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Hammock v. Bowen, 879 F.2d
26
498, 501 (9th Cir. 1989).
Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla, but less than a
The ALJ is responsible for resolving conflicts, ambiguity, and determining
27
Treating Physician’s Opinion. The views of treating physicians are accorded great
28
deference – deserving controlling weight, and if not in conflict with the record, can only
-8-
1
be rejected with findings that are supported by clear and convincing reasons based on
2
substantial evidence. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). Because treating
3
doctors are employed to cure and have a greater opportunity to know and observe the
4
patient as an individual, their opinions are given greater weight than the opinions of other
5
physicians. Rodriguez v. Bowen, 876 F.2d 759 (9th Cir. 1989). If the treating physician’s
6
medical opinion is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, “[t]reating
7
source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of
8
the factors provided in 20 CFR § 404.1527.” SSR 96-2p. These factors include length of
9
treatment relationship and frequency of examination, nature and extent of the treatment
10
relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization and other factors.
11
Claimant’s Testimony. An ALJ must engage in a two-step analysis in evaluating
12
the credibility of a claimant’s testimony regarding alleged symptoms. Smolen v. Chater,
13
80 F.3d 1273, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996). First, the ALJ must determine whether there is
14
objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment that could reasonably be
15
expected to produce the alleged symptoms. Id. at 1281. Second, when there is no
16
affirmative evidence suggesting malingering, the ALJ must also set forth “specific, clear
17
and convincing reasons” before it can reject a claimant’s testimony about the severity of
18
symptoms. Id. at 1283-84. See Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915, 918 (9th Cir. 1993). The
19
clear and convincing standard is the most heightened standard in Social Security Law.
20
Moore v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 278 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2002). Once an underlying impairment
21
is verified, an ALJ cannot use a lack of full and objective medical corroboration to reject
22
a claimant’s subjective symptoms. Cotton v. Bowen, 799 F.2d 1403, 1407 (9th Cir. 1986),
23
superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Bunnell v. Sullivan, 912 F.2d 1149
24
(9th Cir.1990). To support a finding that the symptoms are not credible, the ALJ must
25
offer specific findings properly supported by the record in sufficient detail to allow a
26
reviewing court to review the findings for permissible grounds and freedom from
27
arbitrariness. (Id.) Moreover, the mere fact that Kinnex engages in some daily activities
28
does not in any way detract from the credibility as to her overall disability, as a claimant
-9-
1
does not need to be “utterly incapacitated” in order to be disabled. Vertigan v. Halter,
2
260 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th Cir. 2001). Such activities of daily living can only be used to
3
reject a claimant’s testimony if those activities actually show that a claimant can work or
4
they are inconsistent with a claimant’s testimony regarding what he or she can do. (Id.)
5
ANALYSIS
6
On appeal, Kinnex argues that the ALJ improperly discounted Dr. Venger’s
7
opinion, improperly discounted her credibility, and misconstrued VE Atha’s testimony.
8
(Doc. 18) The Court partially agrees.
9
For both Dr. Venger’s opinion and Kinnex’s testimony, the ALJ relied on contrary
10
medical conclusions about the severity of Kinnex’s spine disorder and the implications
11
about severity from the type of treatment she received. However, the conclusions that
12
Kinnex’s medical records showed “relatively benign” spinal problems without “any
13
significant abnormalities” were not based on the opinions of a medical expert. Similarly,
14
the ALJ concluded that Kinnex’s treatment was not indicative of total disability without
15
any expert testimony. Although possibly correct, this is—without more—not a sufficient
16
foundation to justify discounting the opinion of a treating physician.
17
Next, the ALJ did not find evidence that Kinnex was malingering. Instead, the
18
ALJ found that Kinnex’s impairments could reasonably be expected to cause her alleged
19
symptoms but her statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her
20
symptoms were not credible to the extent they were inconsistent with the residual
21
functional capacity assessment. (Tr. 24-25) To support this, the ALJ noted that Kinnex
22
used an un-prescribed cane and contrasted two relatively-pain free months in early 2013
23
with less successful pain management in subsequent months. However, the ALJ does not
24
explain why a change from 91-100% to 61-70% pain reduction with medication is
25
problematic. Thus, the ALJ did not provide a sufficient explanation to support a finding
26
that Kinnex was not fully credible.
27
Finally, the ALJ found that Kinnex could transfer the skills from her clerk position
28
and, therefore, she was not disabled. (Tr. 28-29) This conclusion was based on a
- 10 -
1
confusing and incomplete portion of the VE’s testimony that included an interruption by
2
Kinnex to dispute the VE’s statements. First, the VE concluded the transferable skills
3
came from one job and, after Kinnex disputed this conclusion, the VE concluded that the
4
skills came from a different job. As Kinnex notes, whether her skills are transferrable
5
could be dispositive to the question of her disability. (Doc. 18 at 16-20)
6
REMAND FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
7
Here, the Court cannot remand for benefits because the ALJ failed to provide
8
legally sufficient reasons for rejecting evidence and it appears that the record has not
9
been fully developed. Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1020 (9th Cir. 2014). As
10
described above, the ALJ did not properly explain the reasons for rejecting Kinnex’s
11
credibility or for rejecting her treating physician’s opinion. Doing so appears to require
12
further development of the record, including, possibly, a medical expert.6 Accordingly,
13
the best course is to remand for further proceedings.
14
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner is
15
VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further
16
proceedings consistent with this Order. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment
17
accordingly.
18
19
20
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon remand, the Commissioner will remand
the case to an ALJ with instructions to:
1.
open the record to obtain:
21
a.
updated medical records;
22
b.
functional capacity assessments from Kinnex’s treating physicians
23
and/or agency consultative examiners, to the extent appropriate;
24
c.
25
activities of daily living forms and any relevant third party reports;
updated information from Kinnex, including but not limited to,
26
6
27
28
The record shows that Dr. Venger renewed Kinnex’s Percocet prescription at
every single appointment but that Kinnex’s drug screens were all negative for Percocet.
(Tr. 437, 526, 554, 603) Although the Court has no medical expertise, it appears that
this discrepancy could impact the ALJ’s evaluation of Dr. Venger’s opinion and Kinnex’s
credibility.
- 11 -
1
2
2.
hold a de novo hearing that includes testimony from vocational and medical
experts, to the extent appropriate; and
3
3.
4
Dated this 3rd day of April, 2017.
issue a new decision.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 12 -
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?