Click v. Social Security Administration
Filing
15
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS that the final decision of the Commissioner be affirmed and Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice 2 . Objections due no later than 14 days from the date of the findings and recommendations. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe on 12/21/2018. (lej)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
COREY CHADEWICK GLICK,
v.
PLAINTIFF
4:18cv00389-KGB-JJV
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security
DEFENDANT
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
INSTRUCTIONS
This recommended disposition has been submitted to United States District Judge Kristine
G. Baker. The parties may file specific objections to these findings and recommendations and
must provide the factual or legal basis for each objection. The objections must be filed with the
Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings and recommendations. A
copy must be served on the opposing party. The district judge, even in the absence of objections,
may reject these proposed findings and recommendations in whole or in part.
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
Plaintiff, Corey Click, has appealed the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration to deny his claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental
security income. Both parties have submitted appeal briefs and the case is now ready for a
decision.
A court’s function on review is to determine whether the Commissioner’s decision is
supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and free of legal error. Slusser v.
Astrue, 557 F.3d 923, 925 (8th Cir. 2009); Long v. Chater, 108 F.3d 185, 187 (8th Cir. 1997); see
also 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3).
Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Richardson v. Perales, 402
U.S. 389, 401 (1971); Reynolds v. Chater, 82 F.3d 254, 257 (8th Cir. 1996). In assessing the
substantiality of the evidence, courts must consider evidence that detracts from the
Commissioner’s decision as well as evidence that supports it; a court may not, however, reverse
the Commissioner’s decision merely because substantial evidence would have supported an
opposite decision. Sultan v. Barnhart, 368 F.3d 857, 863 (8th Cir. 2004); Woolf v. Shalala, 3
F.3d 1210, 1213 (8th Cir. 1993).
The history of the administrative proceedings and the statement of facts relevant to this
decision are contained in the respective briefs and are not in serious dispute. Therefore, they will
not be repeated in this opinion except as necessary. After careful consideration of the record as
a whole, I find the decision of the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence.
Plaintiff is young - only forty-one years old. (Tr. 41.) He testified that he went as far as
the tenth grade in school. (Id.) Mr. Click has past relevant work as an animal attendant, a press
jogger, and barber. (Tr. 26.)
The Administrative Law Judge2 (ALJ) found Mr. Click has a combination of “severe”
impairments.
(Tr. 17.)
The ALJ further found Mr. Click did not have an impairment or
2
The ALJ followed the required sequential analysis to determine: (1) whether the claimant was
engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if not, whether the claimant had a severe impairment;
(3) if so, whether the impairment (or combination of impairments) met or equaled a listed
impairment; and (4) if not, whether the impairment (or combination of impairments) prevented the
claimant from performing past relevant work; and (5) if so, whether the impairment (or
combination of impairments) prevented the claimant from performing any other jobs available in
significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)-(g) and 404.1520(a)-(g).
2
combination of impairments meeting or equaling an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart
P, Appendix 1.3 (Tr. 18-19.)
The ALJ determined Mr. Click had the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform a
reduced range of sedentary work. (Tr. 19-20.) Given this RFC, Mr. Click is no longer able to
perform his past relevant work. (Tr. 26.) Therefore, the ALJ employed the services of a
vocational expert to determine whether jobs existed that Mr. Click could perform despite his
impairments. (Tr. 58-61.) The ALJ determined that Plaintiff was capable of performing the
jobs of machine tender and inspector. (Tr. 27.) Accordingly, the ALJ determined Mr. Click
was not disabled. (Tr. 27-28.)
In support of his Complaint, Mr. Click argues the ALJ “failed to give proper weight to the
opinion of Plaintiff’s treating provider, Dr. Lewis, instead of relying on the outdated opinions of
the State Agency Medical Consultants.” (Doc. No. 12 at 16.) Plaintiff is correct that his treating
doctor should generally be given deference, but after a close review of the records, I find the ALJ
properly assessed the opinion of Derek Lewis, M.D.
Dr. Lewis provided a Medical Source Statement indicating Plaintiff was extremely limited
due to his degenerative disc disease.
(Tr. 750-751.)
As Plaintiff states, if the ALJ gave
significant weight to this evidence, Mr. Click would be considered disabled. (Doc. No. 12 at 17.)
The ALJ gave the Medical Source Statement little weight stating:
Obviously, the medical statement is internally inconsistent. It assumes a
progressive disease will worsen and cause additional limitations. The opinion
states that the claimant would be off tasks and have interference to maintain focus
and concentration. However, the treatment notes consistently show no side effects
of medication and there is no evidence of lack of concentration or focus. . .
Treatment notes from Derek Lewis between February 2016 and March 2017
3
420 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925, and 416.926.
3
consistently revealed intact memory, judgment, and insight with normal mood and
affect.
(Tr. 26.)
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has reiterated:
Generally, a treating physician’s opinion is given more weight than other sources
in a disability proceeding. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Indeed, when the treating
physician’s opinion is supported by proper medical testing, and is not inconsistent
with other substantial evidence in the record, the ALJ must give the opinion
controlling weight. Id. “However, [a]n ALJ may discount or even disregard the
opinion of a treating physician where other medical assessments are supported by
better or more thorough medical evidence, or where a treating physician renders
inconsistent opinions that undermine the credibility of such opinions.” Wildman
v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 959, 964 (8th Cir. 2010) (alteration in original) (internal
quotation omitted). Ultimately, the ALJ must “give good reasons” to explain the
weight given the treating physician's opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).
Anderson v. Astrue, 696 F.3d 790, 793 (8th Cir. 2012).
Here, the ALJ had fair reasons to discount Dr. Lewis’s conclusions. As the Commissioner
notes, treatment notes showed no issues with side effects from medication and Plaintiff’s pain was
generally controlled by his medication. (Doc. No. 14 at 17.) While the evidence reveals Plaintiff
does have serious back issues, the ALJ fairly accounted for those issues in his RFC assessment.
In fact, the ALJ’s RFC is fairly consistent with Dr. Lewis’s own conclusions. For example, both
the ALJ and Dr. Lewis determined Plaintiff could lift and carry 10 pounds occasionally and less
than 10 pounds frequently. (Tr. 19, 749.) The ALJ also incorporated a “sit/stand option that
involves standing or walking in intervals of 10-20 minutes and sitting in intervals of 20 minutes”
that was consistent with Dr. Lewis’s recommendation. (Tr. 20, 749.) It is also significant that
Dr. Lewis recommended that Plaintiff engage in “aerobic activity, such as walking, swimming,
stationary bicycle, [and] light jogging,” (Tr. 1141), evidencing Plaintiff was more capable than
4
was suggested in the Medical Source Statement. So, the ALJ could properly discount Dr. Lewis’s
Medical Source Statement.
Plaintiff argues “The ALJ’s RFC determination is not supported by substantial evidence
because the ALJ failed to order a consultative examination to determine Plaintiff[’s] mental
limitations.” (Doc. No. 12 at 13.) But the ALJ is permitted to issue a decision without obtaining
additional evidence if the record is sufficient to make an informed decision. E.g., Haley v.
Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 749 (8th Cir. 2001); Anderson v. Shalala, 51 F.3d 777, 779 (8th Cir.
1995).
At the administrative hearing, Plaintiff did not report any mental limitations that prevented
him from working. (Tr. 42-58.)
To the contrary, Plaintiff reported he had issues standing,
reaching, lifting, and walking. (Tr. 42-47.) He reported he had affective, depressive, and anxiety
disorders, (Tr. 43), but he testified his limitations were based on his physical impairments. (Tr. 5557.)
Additionally, Plaintiff is reminded he had the burden of proving his disability. E.g., Sykes
v. Bowen, 854 F.2d 284, 285 (8th Cir. 1988). Thus, he bore the responsibility of presenting the
strongest case possible. Thomas v. Sullivan, 928 F.2d 255, 260 (8th Cir. 1991). The fact that
Plaintiff’s counsel did not obtain (or, as far as the record reflects, try to obtain) additional opinions
from his treating doctors suggests they are of only minor importance. See Shannon v. Chater, 54
F.3d 484, 488 (8th Cir. 1995). Moreover, I find no indication that Plaintiff or his counsel
requested that the ALJ order a consultative evaluation at any time during the administrative
process. Plaintiff bears a heavy burden in showing the record has been inadequately developed.
He must show both a failure to develop necessary evidence and unfairness or prejudice from that
failure. Combs v. Astrue, 243 Fed.Appx. 200, 204 (8th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff has shown neither;
5
therefore, his argument is without merit.
Counsel for both sides have done exemplary work on behalf of their respective clients. I
am sympathetic to Mr. Click’s claims. He is a young man. I am certain he experiences pain,
fatigue, and limiting effects. But the overall medical evidence provides substantial support for
the ALJ’s determination that he could perform work at the sedentary exertional level.
Plaintiff has advanced other arguments that I have considered and find to be without merit.
It is not the task of this Court to review the evidence and make an independent decision. Neither
is it to reverse the decision of the ALJ because there is evidence in the record which contradicts
his findings. The test is whether there is substantial evidence on the record as a whole which
supports the decision of the ALJ. E.g., Mapes v. Chater, 82 F.3d 259, 262 (8th Cir. 1996); Pratt
v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 830, 833 (8th Cir. 1992). I have reviewed the entire record, including the
briefs, the ALJ’s decision, the transcript of the hearing, and the medical and other evidence. There
is ample evidence on the record as a whole that “a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support [the] conclusion” of the ALJ in this case. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401
(1971); see also Reutter ex rel. Reutter v. Barnhart, 372 F.3d 946, 950 (8th Cir. 2004). The
Commissioner’s decision is not based on legal error.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the final decision of the Commissioner be
affirmed and Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice.
DATED this 21st day of December 2018.
____________________________________
JOE J. VOLPE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
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?