Pereira v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION: The final decision of the Commissioner is reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g) for further proceedings. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Claimant and against the Commissioner. The Clerk is also directed to close the case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly on 2/7/2014. (PAB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
KATHERINE E. PEREIRA,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 6:12-cv-1831-Orl-GJK
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The Plaintiff Katherine E. Pereira (the “Claimant”) brings this action pursuant to the Social
Security Act (the “Act”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), to obtain judicial review of a final
decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the “Commissioner”)
denying her claim for Supplemental Security Income. Doc. No. 1. Claimant argues that the
Administrative Law Judge (the “ALJ”) erred by failing to: (1) show good cause, supported by
substantial evidence, for giving limited weight to the opinion of Claimant’s treating physician, Dr.
Mladen Antolic (Doc. No. 17 at 13-14); (2) provide specific and adequate reasons for finding
Claimant’s subjective statements not credible (Doc. No. 17 at 15-16); and (3) consider certain
evidence in determining Claimant’s residual functional capacity (the “RFC”) (Doc. No. 17 at 1012). For the reasons set forth below, it is ORDERED that the Commissioner’s final decision is
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
I.
ANALYSIS.
A. Dr. Antolic.
Claimant argues that the ALJ failed to demonstrate good cause for giving Dr. Antolic’s
opinion (R. 404-05) limited weight. Doc. No. 17 at 13-14. The Commissioner contends that the
ALJ’s reasons for giving limited weight to Dr. Antolic’s opinion are supported by substantial
evidence. Doc. No. 18 at 14-15. For the reasons set forth below, the Court agrees with Claimant,
and finds that the final decision is not supported by substantial evidence.
The ALJ’s findings of fact are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla — i.e., the evidence must do more than
merely create a suspicion of the existence of a fact, and must include such relevant evidence as a
reasonable person would accept as adequate to support the conclusion. Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d
1553, 1560 (11th Cir. 1995) (citing Walden v. Schweiker, 672 F.2d 835, 838 (11th Cir. 1982) and
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)); accord Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580, 584
n.3 (11th Cir. 1991). The District Court “may not decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or
substitute [its] judgment for that of the [Commissioner].” Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232,
1240 n. 8 (11th Cir. 2004).
Weighing the opinions and findings of treating, examining, and non-examining physicians
is an integral part of the ALJ’s sequential evaluation process for determining disability. In cases
like this one, involving the ALJ’s handling of a treating physician’s medical opinion, “substantialevidence review . . . involves some intricacy.” Gaskin v. Commissioner of Social Security, 533
Fed.Appx. 929, 931 (11th Cir. Aug. 14, 2013) (unpublished).1 In Winschel v. Commissioner of
Social Security, 631 F.3d 1176, 1178-79 (11th Cir. 2011), the Eleventh Circuit held that whenever
1
In the Eleventh Circuit, unpublished decisions are not binding, but are persuasive authority. See 11th Cir. R. 36-2.
-2-
a physician offers a statement reflecting judgments about the nature and severity of a claimant’s
impairments, including symptoms, diagnosis, and prognosis; what the claimant can still do despite
his or her impairments; and the claimant’s physical and mental restrictions, the statement is an
opinion requiring the ALJ to state with particularity the weight given to it and the reasons therefor.
Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(2), 416.927(a)(2); Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278, 279 (11th
Cir. 1987)). The Eleventh Circuit stated that “‘[i]n the absence of such a statement, it is impossible
for a reviewing court to determine whether the ultimate decision on the merits of the claim is
rational and supported by substantial evidence.’” Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178-79 (quoting Cowart
v. Schwieker, 662 F.2d 731, 735 (11th Cir. 1981) (emphasis added)). See also MacGregor v.
Bowen, 786 F.2d 1050, 1053 (11th Cir. 1986) (failure to state with particularity the weight given
to opinions and the reasons therefor constitutes reversible error); Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d
1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997) (failure to clearly articulate reasons for giving less weight to the
opinion of treating physician constitutes reversible error).
Absent good cause, the opinions of treating physicians must be accorded substantial or
considerable weight. Lamb v. Bowen, 847 F.2d 698, 703 (11th Cir. 1988).
Good cause exists when the: “(1) treating physician's opinion was
not bolstered by the evidence; (2) evidence supported a contrary
finding; or (3) treating physician's opinion was conclusory or
inconsistent with the doctor's own medical records.” Phillips v.
Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240-41 (11th Cir.2004) (citations
omitted); see also Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580, 583 (11th
Cir.1991); MacGregor v. Bowen, 786 F.2d 1050, 1053 (11th
Cir.1986).
Johnson v. Barnhart, 138 Fed.Appx. 266, 269 (11th Cir. 2005).
Conclusory statements by an ALJ to the effect that an opinion is inconsistent with or not
bolstered by the medical record are insufficient to show an ALJ’s decision is supported by
substantial evidence unless the ALJ articulates factual support for such a conclusion. See Anderson
-3-
v. Astrue, No. 3:12-cv-308-J-JRK, 2013 WL 593754 at *5 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 15, 2013) (ALJ must
do more than recite a good cause reason to reject treating physician opinion and must articulate
evidence supporting that reason) (citing authority); Poplardo v. Astrue, No. 3:06-cv-1101-J-MCR,
2008 WL 68593 at *11 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 4, 2008) (failure to specifically articulate evidence contrary
to treating doctor's opinion requires remand); see also Paltan v. Comm'r of Social Sec., No. 6:07cv-932-Orl-19DAB, 2008 WL 1848342 at *5 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 22, 2008) (“The ALJ's failure to
explain how [the treating doctor's] opinion was ‘inconsistent with the medical evidence’ renders
review impossible and remand is required.”).
In this case, Dr. Antolic treated Claimant approximately twenty-eight (28) times between
September 24, 2007 and August 19, 2010, for injuries sustained in a May 4, 2007, motor vehicle
accident. R. 235-64, 394-403. On September 24, 2007, Claimant presented to Dr. Antolic for
pain management and treatment of her injuries. R. 255-56. Physical examination revealed limited
range of motion in the cervical and lumbar spine, 4/5 muscle strength, no diffuse weakness,
positive straight leg raises in sitting position, and diffuse tenderness with significant trigger points
and paravertebral muscle spasms on the right. R. 255-56. Claimant was able to stand and
ambulate, but with difficulty standing and walking on toes and heels. R. 256. Dr. Antolic’s
impressions were myofascial pain of the cervical and lumbar spine, and pain radiating into the left
lower extremity with numbness. R. 256. He ordered a magnetic resonance imaging (the “MRI”)
of the lumbar spine and an electromyogram study (“EMG”). R. 256.
The September 25, 2007 MRI revealed a herniated nucleus populous at the L4-L5 and L5S1 levels with bilateral neural foramina.
radiculopathy. R. 260-62.
R. 263-64.
The EMG was positive for left S1
Dr. Antolic’s treatment notes from September 25, 2007 through
October 25, 2007, show that Claimant continued to experience significant pain and spasms in the
-4-
cervical and lumbar spine with intermittent radiation of pain into her lower extremities and reduced
range of motion. R. 248-54. Dr. Antolic provided trigger point injections, other unspecified
modalities, and prescribed medications. R. 252.
On October 25, 2007, Dr. Antolic’s physical examination continued to show restricted
range of motion with diffuse tenderness and a significant amount of trigger points with muscle
spasm on the right side, but negative straight leg testing and normal strength. R. 246. Dr. Antolic
opined that Claimant has a 14% total body, permanent impairment and her “[f]uture limitations
will include limited overhead work, no prolonged sitting and no lifting objects greater than 15
pounds.” R. 246-47.2
From November 8, 2007 through January 7, 2008, Dr. Antolic’s treatment records show
that Claimant experienced increased pain and spasms in her cervical and lumbar spine, but
medication and modalities helped to control the pain. R. 241-44. On January 21, 2008, Claimant
underwent a lumbar laminectomy at the L4-L5, a discectomy at that level, and a segmental fusion
at L5-S1. R. 225-26, 306. Dr. Antolic’s February 5, 2008, treatment notes reveal that while
Claimant continued to experience constant pain in the low back, she felt somewhat better following
surgery. R. 240.
In March of 2008, Claimant experienced a spinal fluid leak and underwent surgery to repair
the leak. R. 306. A May 1, 2008, MRI of the cervical spine revealed: mild disc bulging at C4-5;
moderate disk bulging at C5-6 with broad based posterior disk herniation associated with a radial
tear; bilateral facet hypertrophy; severe right neural foraminal stenosis; mild to moderate left
neural foraminal stenosis; and neural encroachment, but no evidence of cord compression. R. 349-
Dr. Antolic’s statement is clearly an opinion under the Winschel standard (see 631 F.3d at 1178-79). The ALJ, in
her January 21, 2011 decision, does not discuss or mention Dr. Antolic’s October 25, 2007 opinion. See R. 16-27.
Nevertheless, Claimant raises no issue on appeal with respect to the ALJ’s handling of that particular opinion. Doc.
No. 17.
2
-5-
50. Dr. Antolic’s May 5, 2008 treatment note shows constant pain despite lumbar surgery, reduced
range of motion, and muscle spasms. R. 239. A May 28, 2008, MRI of the lumbar spine showed
a “broad-based posterior disk herniation at L4-5, which has increased in size compared with the
previous MRI.” R. 259. Thus, Claimant’s L4-L5 disk herniation increased in size post-surgery.
R. 259.
Dr. Antolic’s treatment records from May 12, 2008 through May 14, 2009, show that
Claimant continued to experience chronic pain in cervical, thoracic, and lower back regions, she
displayed restricted range of motion, and she had pain radiating into her shoulders and lower
extremities, but medication and modalities did provide some relief of symptoms. R. 235-38, 40003.3 On July 30, 2009, Claimant reported that her medications make a real difference in her life,
3
On September 4, 2008, Claimant’s treating orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Frank B. Gomes, provided the following opinion:
We have reviewed the medical records. . . . The patient was seen initially on
12/11/07. The patient suffered a severe motor vehicle accident on 5/4/07. The
patient suffered severe injuries to the neck and to the low back. She was
diagnosed to have lumbar disc protrusions at L4-5 and L5-S1 as a result of this
accident. The patient underwent surgery . . . on 1/21/08. A lumbar laminectomy
at L4-5, discectomy at L4-5, and inspection of the L5-S1 interspace were carried
out along with a segmental fusion. The patient was found to have a large disc
herniation with a tear at L4-5. Immediate post-op was eventful, however, the
patient developed spinal fluid leak post-op and had to be re-operated on and a
repair of her spinal fluid leak was carried out on 3/10/08. The patient had slow
but progressive recovery. The patient was last seen on 7/22/08. Primarily she has
residual low back pain, aggravated with activities and has intermittent left gluteal
pain and numbness. The patient has also developed a history coccydynia. The
patient also has been diagnosed to have disc protrusions primarily at C5-6 and
C6-7, more markedly at C5-6 with a tear at that level. I believe she will end up
requiring surgery in the future for the cervical spinal injuries. The patient has
achieved maximum medical improvement as of 7/22/08. The patient has chronic
low back pain and has developed severe neck pain and intractable headaches. The
patient has been followed up [sic] a pain management specialist. She has chronic
facet joint pain giving her chronic low back pain and also the coccygeal pain has
not resolved. Based on the severity of the injuries and ongoing symptoms, it is
my opinion within reasonable medical probability that this patient will not be able
to return to substantial gainful employment. In my opinion this patient has a total
and permanent disability. The patient needs life long followup [sic] by a pain
management specialist and/or neurologist to address the chronic pain syndrome
and to address the migraine headaches. Eventually, she also may require a general
-6-
and that her ability to perform activities of daily living is better. R. 399. Dr. Antolic noted that
Claimant has good functionality as a result of her medications. R. 399. From May 6, 2010 through
August 19, 2010, Dr. Antolic’s treatment notes state that Claimant’s ability to perform activities
of daily living is either the same or worse than the prior treatment note, and her level of pain
remains high. R. 394-97.
On August 24, 2010, Dr. Antolic completed a Physical Capacities Evaluation. R. 404-05.
Dr. Antolic opined that: Claimant can sit for less than 2 hours and stand for less than 2 hours in an
eight-hour workday; she can occasionally lift up to 5 pounds; she can perform simple grasping and
fine manipulations with both hands, but she cannot push or pull with arm controls; she cannot use
her right or left leg for pushing and pulling of leg controls; Claimant requires a twenty minute rest
period every hour during an eight-hour workday; and she will need to lie down for substantial
periods during a normal workday. R. 404-05. Dr. Antolic opined that these limitations have
existed since at least June 1, 2008. R. 405.
In the decision, the ALJ determined at step-two of the sequential evaluation process that
Claimant has the following severe impairments: “herniated nucleus pulposus at L4-L5 and L5-S1
status post laminectomy at L4-L5 with recurrent herniation at L4-L5 and nerve root impingement;
spinal stenosis in the lumbar spine; cervical dysfunction variously described as minimal bulging,
tear and spondylitic changes; coccydynia; and a mental impairment variously described as
depressive disorder, adjustment disorder with depressed mood and pain disorder.” R. 18. The
ALJ found that Claimant retains the RFC for light work with additional limitations, including:
surgeon to deal with the coccydynia through surgical intervention if further pain
management fails. Please let me know if you need further information.
R. 30. In her decision, the ALJ states that Dr. Gomes provided a statement that Claimant is “unable to return to
substantial gainful employment because of her condition status-post two spinal surgeries. . . . I give this opinion no
weight as it opines on an issue, which is reserved for the Commissioner.” R. 24. On appeal, the Claimant raises no
specific allegation of error with respect to the ALJ’s handling of Dr. Gomes’s opinion. See Doc. No. 17 at 13-15.
-7-
[C]laimant has the capacity to occasionally lift and carry 20 pounds
and to frequently lift and carry 10 pounds. The claimant has the
capacity to frequently push and pull up to the weight capacity for
lifting and carrying. The claimant has the capacity to stand and walk
6 hours in an 8-hour workday and has the capacity to sit 6 hours in
an 8-hour workday. The claimant requires the ability to change
positions while at work but this need can be met at normal break and
meal periods. The claimant has the capacity to frequently balance,
and to occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, and climb stairs and
ramps. The claimant has no limitations in handling, fingering,
feeling, or reaching, except overhead, which is limited to
occasionally. Considering the claimant’s subjective complaints of
pain and symptoms of her mental impairment, mentally the claimant
has the capacity to understand, remember, and carry out simple,
routine tasks. The claimant has the capacity to appropriately interact
with supervisors, coworkers and the general-public. The claimant
has the capacity to identify and avoid normal work place hazards
and to adapt to routine changes in the work place.
R. 20. Thus, the ALJ’s RFC conflicts with Dr. Antolic’s opinion, which is more restrictive.
Compare R. 20 with R. 404-05.
In the decision, the ALJ states that after her surgeries, Claimant followed up with Dr.
Antolic in June and July of 2008 for pain management, and he found limited range of motion in
the lumbar spine. R. 21. The ALJ’s decision does not contain any discussion of Dr. Antolic’s
prior treatment notes. R. 20-25. The ALJ states that in November of 2008, May of 2009, and May
through August of 2010, Claimant returned to Dr. Antolic complaining of severe pain, requesting
medication refills, and that she displayed limited range of motion on physical examination. R. 2224.
With respect to Dr. Antolic’s 2010 treatment notes, the ALJ states that “[a]lthough no
limitations or physical examination was documented from these visits, treatment notes do indicate
that the claimant showed good functionality and response to her opioid therapy.” R. 24.
In the section of the decision dealing with medical opinion evidence, the ALJ states the
following:
In August of 2010, Dr. Antolic, the claimant’s pain management
doctor, opined that the claimant is able to sit and stand for a total of
-8-
two hours in an eight-hour workday; occasionally lift up to five
pounds; is unable to use her feet for repetitive work and requires a
twenty-minute rest period per hour. He stated that the claimant is
able to perform simple grasping and fine manipulation but cannot
push or pull with her upper extremities. I give this opinion limited
weight and find that it is not supported by his own treatment notes
which show no objective measures of limitations, but, instead is
based on the claimant’s subjective complaints.
R. 24. Thus, the ALJ gave “limited weight” to Dr. Antolic’s August 2010 opinion because it is
not supported by this own treatment notes, which show “no objective measures of limitations,”
and because the opinion is based on Claimant’s subjective complaints. R. 24.
The ALJ’s reasons for giving limited weight to Dr. Antolic’s August 2010 opinion are not
supported by substantial evidence for three principle reasons. First, the Court is unaware of any
regulation, rule, or other legal authority requiring a treating physician’s treatment notes to contain
“objective measures of limitations.” Treatment notes, as opposed to medical evaluations intended
to determine an individual’s functional limitations, usually contain examination findings,
symptoms, diagnoses, and treatment recommendations, not statements of functional limitations.
Second, in this case, Dr. Antolic’s treatment notes actually do contain objective testing results and
limitations. Dr. Antolic ordered three MRI’s and an EMG study, the results of which are detailed
above. Moreover, Dr. Antolic’s October 25, 2007 treatment note states that Claimant has a 14%
total body, permanent impairment and her “[f]uture limitations will include limited overhead work,
no prolonged sitting and no lifting objects greater than 15 pounds.” R. 246-47 (emphasis added).
Third, the ALJ’s statement that Dr. Antolic’s opinion is based on Claimant’s subjective complaints
is wholly conclusory.
While the ALJ did recite a good cause reason to reject or give limited
weight to Dr. Antolic’s opinion, i.e. that the opinion is not supported by his treatment notes, the
ALJ failed to articulate the evidence supporting that reason. See Anderson v. Astrue, No. 3:12-cv308-J-JRK, 2013 WL 593754 at *5 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 15, 2013) (ALJ must do more than recite a
-9-
good cause reason to reject treating physician opinion and must articulate evidence supporting that
reason). Accordingly, the Court finds that ALJ failed to demonstrate good cause, supported by
substantial evidence, for giving limited weight to Dr. Antolic’s 2010 opinion, which is reversible
error.
B. Other Issues.
Claimant argues that ALJ also erred by failing to provide specific and adequate reasons for
finding her subjective complaints not credible and by not considering all of the evidence in
determining Claimant’s RFC. Doc. No. 17 at 10-12, 15-16.
This case must be reversed and
remanded due to the ALJ’s errors with respect to Dr. Antolic’s opinion. On remand, the ALJ will
necessarily have reconsider all of the evidence, including the Claimant’s subjective statements,
and make a new RFC determination. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to determine if the ALJ also
erred with respect to the Claimant’s credibility and by failing to consider other evidence.
II.
CONCLUSION.
Claimant requests reversal and a remand for an award of benefits or, alternatively, a remand
for further proceedings. Doc. No. 17 at 17. The evidence in this case is conflicting. See generally
R. 213-405. While two treating physicians opined that Claimant’s impairments and the limitations
stemming therefrom prevent her from performing substantial gainful activity (see R. 246-47, 306,
404-05), other evidence suggests that Claimant is not so limited (see R. 313-20, 336-43). It is for
the ALJ, not the Court, to properly weigh and resolve these conflicts in the evidence. Phillips v.
Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240 n. 8 (11th Cir. 2004) (court may not reweigh the evidence or
substitute its opinion for that of the Commissioner).4
Based on this record, the Court finds that a remand for further proceedings is appropriate.
On remand, the ALJ should carefully consider and weigh all of the opinions from Claimant’s treating physicians,
including Dr. Gomez. See R. 306.
4
- 10 -
For the reasons stated above, it is ORDERED that:
1.
The final decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED for
further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of Section 405(g); and
2.
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Claimant and against the
Commissioner; and
3.
The Clerk is directed to close the case.
DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on February 7, 2014.
The Court Requests that the Clerk
Mail or Deliver Copies of this order to:
Shea A. Fugate, Esq.
Law Offices of Shea A. Fugate
P.O. Box 940989
Maitland, FL 32794
John F. Rudy, III
Suite 3200
400 N Tampa St
Tampa, FL 33602
Mary Ann Sloan, Regional Chief Counsel
Dennis R. Williams, Deputy Regional Chief Counsel
Susan Kelm Story, Branch Chief
Christopher G. Harris, Assistant Regional Counsel
Office of the General Counsel, Region IV
Social Security Administration
61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Suite 20T45
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8920
- 11 -
The Honorable Angela Miranda
Administrative Law Judge
c/o Office of Disability Adjudication and Review
National Hearing Center
5107 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22041
- 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?