Tsakalakis v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
20
ORDER AND OPINION Entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 8/1/2011. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 13) is DENIED and the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Affirmance (Doc. 16) is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff. IT IS SO ORDERED. CASE TERMINATED. (cc: Plaintiff) (KB, ilcd)
E-FILED
Monday, 01 August, 2011 03:38:03 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
PETER C. TSAKALAKIS,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
Case No.
08-cv-1175
ORDER & OPINION
This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 13) and the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Affirmance (Doc.
16). For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 13)
is DENIED, and the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Affirmance (Doc. 16) is
GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Peter C. Tsakalakis (“Tsakalakis”) was 52 years old at the time of
his administrative hearing. He is a high school graduate and has an associate’s
degree as an electronics technician. From 1979 until August 9, 2005, Tsakalakis
worked as an electronic technician. He last worked in 2005. Tsakalakis applied for
Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) on December 21, 2005, alleging that he
became disabled on August 9, 2005.
A. History of Medical Treatments
On August 9, 2005, Tsakalakis injured his left knee and central tendon in his
left arm while lifting a heavy television at work. He was treated at an emergency
room and advised to see an orthopedic surgeon.
On August 11, 2005, Tsakalakis sought treatment by Dr. Dirk Nelson, an
orthopedic surgeon. He had x-rays of his left shoulder and left knee. Dr. Nelson
noted that besides the rupture of the left bicep, other musculoskeletal issues were
due to aches and pains and should improve within two to three weeks. An MRI
revealed spinal stenosis at L3-L4. Dr. Nelson indicated that spinal stenosis, the
abnormal narrowing of the vertebral canal, nerve root canals, or intervertebral
formania of the lumbar spine, would likely explain Tsakalakis’ back and leg
symptoms. On August 25, 2005, Tsakalakis sought treatment from Dr. Nelson
again. Dr. Nelson found Tsakalakis’ hands, wrists and elbows functioned normally.
After noting that Tsakalakis was a nervous individual who needed reassurance that
his complaints of pain were not serious, Dr. Nelson placed him on temporary duty
disability status.
Three days prior, on August 22, 2005, Tsakalakis visited Dr. Sonnenberg, an
orthopedic surgeon, for his biceps injury. Dr. Sonnenberg examined Tsakalakis’
right shoulder and observed a full range of motion, no significant swelling, and mild
tenderness. Dr. Sonnenberg suggested surgery but agreed that Tsakalakis could try
therapy. Tsakalakis saw Dr. Sonnenberg again on September 19, 2005. He
continued to complain of pain in his left shoulder. Dr. Sonnenberg noted tenderness
2
with positive impingement signs on the left bicep. Dr. Sonnenberg wrote that with
therapy of upper extremities, Tsakalakis would probably be ready to return to
normal duties at work within four to six weeks.
On September 20, 2005, Tsakalakis saw Dr. Michael Zindrick, an orthopedic
surgeon. He reported lower back pain radiating down his left leg. Dr. Zindrick
observed pain with flexion beyond 45 degrees, extension beyond 10 degrees, and
side bending beyond 20 degrees bilaterally. He observed that Tsakalakis had preexisting asymptomatic congenital neural spinal canal spondylolisthesis and spinal
stenosis at L3-4. X-rays further revealed degenerative changes of lumbar spine at
L3-4 with grade 1 spondylolisthesis, which is the forward movement of one lumbar
vertebrae on the one below it or on the sacrum. Dr. Zindrick observed that
Tsakalakis had full range of motion in his hips, was able to toe walk and heel walk,
had no motor weakness, had symmetrical reflexes, and had normal sensation to pin
prick and light touch. Dr. Zindrick recommended back surgery for Tsakalakis.
On October 11, 2005, Dr. Nelson ordered an MRI of Plaintiff’s knee, which
showed a torn medial meniscus and small cyst adjacent to the head of the fibula.
Dr. Nelson recommended arthroscopic surgery for the knee. Tsakalakis did not
want to pursue surgery, so Dr. Nelson noted that he would not see Tsakalakis for a
follow-up unless Tsakalakis wished to discuss arthroscopic surgery at a later date.
On October 17, 2005, Tsakalakis returned to Dr. Sonnenberg.
Dr.
Sonnenberg noted that while Tsakalakis’s left shoulder revealed a rupture of the
left bicep, it resulted in only mind impingement pain. He noted that Tsakalakis
3
could lift fifteen pounds with his left arm without problems. Dr. Sonnenberg opined
that Tsakalakis could probably return to work with a fifteen pound lifting limit. He
also recommended a steroid injection but Tsakalakis declined. Dr. Sonnenberg
discharged Tsakalakis from further care as he did not see anything else he could do
for him. On November 2, 2005, Tsakalakis sought treatment from Dr. Sonnenberg
again. Dr. Sonnenberg noted that Tsakalakis seemed to be a hypochondriac and
observed only tenderness and no serious problems in the right arm.
On November 1, 2005, Dr. Michael Orth examined Tsakalakis for his
employer’s insurer in connection with his worker’s compensation claim. Dr. Orth
observed the “popeye” muscle in Tsakalakis’ left arm, but noted that he had full
mobility, no tenderness, and no neurovascular deficit in either extremity. Dr. Orth
reported that he did not consider Tsakalakis’ problems work-related and concluded
that Tsakalakis could return to his regular job.
On December 21, 2005, Tsakalakis interviewed with the Social Security
Administration (“SSA”) concerning his application for disability benefits. The SSA
interviewer observed that Tsakalakis had no difficulty hearing, speaking, sitting,
standing, walking or using his hands.
On January 10, 2006, Tsakalakis was seen by Dr. Demetrios Giokaris,
Tsakalakis’ family doctor. Dr. Giokaris completed a Medical Evaluation-Physicians
Report for the State of Illinois. On this form, Dr. Gioarkis checked off boxes to
indicate that Tsakalakis had decreased sensation in his legs, could only lift up to
ten pounds at a time, had limited ability to walk, bend, stand, stoop, turn, climb,
4
push, pull, speak, travel and perform fine and gross manipulations. Dr. Giokaris
noted that Tsakalakis suffered from depression. He further reported that
Tsakalakis had limitations in performing activities of daily living, extreme
limitations in social functioning, and extreme limitations in concentration,
persistence or pace.
On January 30, 2006, Dr. C.C. Prodromos examined Tsakalakis’ left arm,
shoulder, left knee and lower back. Dr. Prodromos observed the “popeye” deformity
in the left biceps but noted that Tsakalakis had good maintenance in other areas.
Dr. Prodromos reported abnormalities in the left shoulder and mildly diminished
range of motion in the lumbar spine. X-rays of the knees and shoulder were normal.
An MRI of the knee revealed chondromalacia of the patella and trochlea and a
posterior horn medial meniscus tear. An MRI of the shoulder showed a torn or
subluxated
biceps
tendon,
supraspinatus
tendinosis,
and
other
possible
abnormalities. An MRI of the lumbar spine revealed spinal stenosis and likely
spondylolysis. Dr. Prodromos recommended knee surgery to correct the torn
meniscus but recommended only epidural injections to treat Tsakalakis’ back pain.
Dr. Prodromos also observed Tsakalakis’ hearing loss and opined that it would be
difficult for him to return to work.
On February 7, 2006, Dr. Mahesh Shah examined Tsakalakis for a medical
consultative exam. Dr. Shah observed that Tsakalakis moved slowly. Dr. Shah
noticed that Tsakalakis could move from the sitting to supine position but needed
help to get up from the supine position due to pain. While Dr. Shah recorded that
5
Tsakalakis had decreased hearing, he also noted that Tsakalakis could hear fairly
well with hearing aids, which he had been using for thirty-five years. Based on
Tsakalakis’ history and examination, Dr. Shah indicated that Tsakalakis had only
some limitations in motion with respect to back, shoulder and knee pain but no
other significant abnormality.
On February 22, 2006, Dr. Zindrick examined Tsakalakis in connection with
his workers’ compensation Claim. Besides a diminished right ankle reflex, he made
no other findings of clinical abnormalities. Dr. Zindrick concluded that Tsakalakis
“will remain off work unless a light duty job can be identified.” On the Work Status
Report, Dr. Zindrick checked the box indicating that modified work was not
available at Tsakalakis’ worksite and that Tsakalakis was unable to return to work.
Tsakalakis filled out an Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 form, where he indicated that
his pain was moderate, that he could look after himself normally, could lift light to
medium weight, could sit and stand for up to an hour at a time, and could walk up
to a mile. He also noted that his sleep was only occasionally disturbed by pain and
neither his travel nor social life were restricted by pain.
On February 23, 2006, Dr. Young-Ja conducted a residual functional capacity
(“RFC”) assessment and concluded that Tsakalakis could lift twenty pounds
occasionally and ten pounds frequently, could stand and sit about six hours each in
an eight hour workday, and that he required no limitations for pushing or pulling.
Dr. Young-Ja limited Tsakalakis to only occasionally ladder, rope or scaffold work,
occasional overhead reaching with the left arm, and placed a limitation on
6
concentrated noise exposure. Dr. Young-Ja’s RFC consideration considered
Tsakalakis’ severe spinal stenosis and torn medial meniscus.
On March 23, 2006, Dr. Marie Kirincic’s progress note revealed that
Tsakalakis was unwilling to explore surgery mainly out of fear. The note indicated
that Tsakalakis benefited from physical therapy with improvements in his lumbar
range of motion and subsistence of lower back pain. Dr. Kirincic wrote that
Tsakalakis will remain off of work due to pending knee surgery and there was no
light duty available at his work.
On April 4, 2006, Dr. Prodromos performed arthroscopic knee surgery on
Tsakalakis. Tsakalakis had physical therapy after the surgery and the knee
improved. Dr. Prodromos also ordered an MRI of Tsakalakis’ right shoulder, which
revealed
inflammation,
mild
to
moderate
degeneration
or
contusion
of
supraspinatus, and moderate to advanced degenerative joint disease of the AC joint.
On May 17, 2006, Tsakalakis reported to Dr. Zindrick that he continued to
experience pain in his low back with numbness, pain, weakness, and tingling in
both his legs. His pain ranged from a 4 to a 10 out of 10, but typically at a 6.
Tsakalakis reported worsening of pain after standing for 20-25 minutes, walking for
half a block, or in the morning. Tsakalakis continued to have decrease range of
motion of the lumbosacral spine. Tsakalakis was able to heel and toe walk and
ambulate with the aid of a cane.
7
On July 16, 2006, Dr. Prodromos notes in his progress report that Tsakalakis’
knee improved much since the surgery, Tsakalakis had a full range of motion and
could perform light activities.
In July of 2006, Tsakalakis began treatment with Dr. Everett, a chiropractor.
Chiropractic treatment provided temporary benefits and Dr. Everett noted that
when standing in one position, bending or lifting, Tsakalakis experienced pain
throughout his lower back and leg. By October 9, 2006, Dr. Everett reported that
Tsakalakis had improved to the point where he was no longer in constant pain,
walked without a cane, and was able to perform more daily activities without
discomfort.
On December 18, 2006, Dr. Giokaris wrote a letter addressed “To Whom It
May Concern” and concluded that Tsakalakis is totally disabled.
B. Administrative Hearing
On December 20, 2006, Tsakalakis appeared before Administrative Law
Judge David Thompson (“ALJ”) and testified regarding his injuries. Tsakalakis
testified that because of ongoing back and knee pain, he could not sit or stand for
more than 20-25 minutes at a time, walk more than half a block and had significant
pain when bending. Tsakalakis estimated that he could lift only 5-10 pounds if he
had to do it all day long and used a cane for prolonged walking. He testified that he
could not lift more than 20-25 pounds with his left arm, 35 pounds with his right,
sometimes had visitors, and drove 20-30 miles per week. Tsakalakis said he took
Lyrica, a prescription medication typically used for neurological pain. Tsakalakis
8
also testified that he could not return to his old job because it required too much
sitting, the technology had changed, and he was not familiar with the new
technology.
A vocational expert (“VE”) testified that Tsakalakis’ job was at a medium
exertional level and there were no jobs in his field at a light level. The VE indicated
that a person of Tsakalakis’ age, education and work experience, who could do a full
range of light work, who is limited to occasional use of ropes, ladders and scaffolds,
and who could reach only occasionally with his left arm and had to avoid
concentrated exposure to noise, could not do Tsakalakis’s past work. The VE
testified that there were jobs available at the light exertional level requiring
transferable skills such as 1,000 electronic assembly inspector positions, and
sufficient light jobs in other fields at an unskilled level, including 3,000 assembly
positions, 1,500 packaging positions, 1,000 information clerking positions, 8,000
greeter positions, and 500 usher positions.
Among the jobs available, the VE articulated that if only overhead reaching
was limited, a person could perform jobs such as assembly and packaging jobs,
information clerking jobs, and semi-skilled inspector jobs. If a person could do only
occasional reaching, the VE testified that assembly and packaging jobs would be
eliminated. If a person could not consistently communicate with the public due to
hearing loss, the VE said that information clerking jobs and greeter and usher jobs
would be eliminated.
9
Following the testimony, on May 21, 2007, the ALJ issued his decision. The
ALJ found that Tsakalakis met the insured status requirement through September
30, 2009, had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since August 9, 2005, and
had a severe combination of impairments, including lumbar stenosis and a left torn
meniscus. However, he determined that Tsakalakis did not have a listing level
impairment.
After considering the medical evidence in the record and relevant credibility
factors as a whole, the ALJ found that Tsakalakis retained the RFC to perform light
work activities, subject to postural and environmental limitations. These limitations
include not lifting more than 20 pounds occasionally or 10 pounds frequently,
occasional climbing of ladders, scaffolds and ropes, and avoiding concentrated
exposure to noise. The ALJ’s assessment was based on the medical records which
indicated a history of conservative treatment by physicians, clinical exams showing
only mild abnormalities, Tsakalakis’ refusal of some recommended treatments, and
several opinions concluding that Tsakalakis could perform light work activities.
While the ALJ decided that Tsakalakis could not perform any past relevant work,
he found that Tsakalakis could perform a significant number of jobs. Therefore, the
ALJ denied Tsakalakis’s claim.
Tsakalakis filed a request for view. In his request, Tsakalakis submitted a
letter from Dr. Prodromos based on a June 4, 2007 examination. In the letter, Dr.
Prodromos reported that despite physical therapy, Tsakalakis still experienced pain
when his shoulder was elevated. He noted that the lumbar spine condition was
10
unchanged and considered Tsakalakis permanently disabled. The Appeals Council
denied Tsakalakis’ request for review, making it the final decision of the
Commissioner.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND THE
COMMISSIONER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE
A. Legal Standard
In order to be entitled to SSI and/or DIB, a plaintiff must show that his
inability to work is medical in nature and that he or she is totally disabled.
Economic conditions, personal factors, financial considerations, and attitudes of
employers are irrelevant in determining whether a plaintiff is eligible for disability
benefits. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1566, 416.966 (1986).
The establishment of disability under the Act is a two-step process. First, the
plaintiff must be suffering from a medically determinable physical or mental
impairment, or combination of impairments, which can be expected to result in
death, or that has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not
less than twelve months. 42 U.S.C. § 1382(c)(a)(3)(A). Second, there must be a
factual determination that the impairment renders the plaintiff unable to engage in
any substantial gainful employment. McNeil v. Califano, 615 F.2d 142, 143 (7th Cir.
1980). That factual determination is made by using a five-step test. See 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520, 416.920.
The five-step test is examined by the ALJ, in order, as follows: (1) is the
plaintiff presently unemployed; (2) is the plaintiff’s impairment “severe” (20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1521, 416.921); (3) does the impairment meet or exceed one of the list of
11
specified impairments (20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1); (4) is the
plaintiff unable to perform his or her former occupation; and (5) is the plaintiff
unable to perform any other work within the national economy?
An affirmative answer to any step leads either to the next step of the test, or
at steps 3 and 5, to a finding that the plaintiff is disabled. A negative answer at any
point, other than at step 3, stops the inquiry and leads to a determination that the
plaintiff is not disabled. Garfield v. Schweiker, 732 F.2d 605 (7th Cir. 1984). The
plaintiff has the burdens of production and persuasion at steps 1 through 4.
However, once the plaintiff shows an inability to perform past work, the burden
shifts to the Commissioner to show ability to engage in some other type of
substantial gainful employment. Tom v. Heckler, 779 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1985);
Halvorsen v. Heckler, 743 F.2d 1221 (7th Cir. 1984).
The Court’s function on review is not to try the case de novo nor to supplant
the ALJ’s finding with the Court’s own assessment of the evidence. Pugh v. Bowen,
870 F.2d 1271 (7th Cir. 1989). The Court must only determine whether the ALJ’s
findings were supported by substantial evidence and whether the proper legal
standards were applied. Delgado v. Bowen, 782 F.2d 79, 82 (7th Cir. 1986). In
determining whether the ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, the
Court must consider whether the record, as a whole, contains “such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). Credibility determinations made by
12
the ALJ will not be disturbed unless the finding is clearly erroneous. Anderson v.
Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985).
B. Analysis
Tsakalakis raises two claims in his appeal: (1) the ALJ erred in his RFC
assessment by not addressing work-related functions and not considering all of
Tsakalakis’ impairments; and (2) the ALJ erred in rejecting the opinions of certain
treating physicians.
1. RFC Assessment
Tsakalakis claims that the ALJ determination of Tsakalakis’ RFC is flawed
because it does not address important work-related functions, does not consider all
of Tsakalakis’ impairments, and is inconsistent with the evidence regarding
Tsakalakis’ limitations. Tsakalakis maintains that the RFC assessment did not
address his ability to stand, walk, or reach. He asserts that given his age, education
and work background, he would be disabled under law if he were limited to
sedentary work. Tsakalakis argues that the RFC finding did not include a functionby-function analysis of his ability and did not include a finding as to skill level.
Therefore, Tsakalakis asserts that because of the ALJ’s errors, the factual findings
are not supported by substantial evidence.
The ALJ did not err in his RFC assessment concerning Tsakalakis’ ability to
stand or walk. The ALJ must “build an accurate and logical bridge from the
evidence to his conclusion.” Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 872 (7th Cir. 2000). The
ALJ must support his decision with “adequate evidence and explain[] why evidence
13
supporting the claim was unpersuasive.” Hill v. Astrue, 295 Fed. Appx. 77, 81 (7th
Cir. 2008). The ALJ relied on Dr. Young-Ja’s RFC assessment in making his
determination. After his examination of Tsakalakis, Dr. Young-Ja reasoned that
Tsakalakis could sit and stand for six hours each during an eight hour workday.
Tsakalakis also noted in the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 form he filled out on
February 22, 2006, that he could stand and sit for up to an hour at a time and walk
up to a mile. Given the existing record, the ALJ reasonably relied on adequate
evidence in determining that Tsakalakis could perform light work that required a
good deal of walking or standing.
The ALJ did not err in determining that no reaching restriction applied in
Tsakalakis’ case. Tsakalakis argues that the ALJ should have applied a reaching
restriction due to the injuries he suffered on his arm and shoulders. However, the
opinions of several doctors establish that no reaching restriction was needed.
During Dr. Orth’s examination on November 1, 2005, Dr. Orth noted that
Tsakalakis had full mobility despite the “popeye” muscle evident in the left arm.
Like Dr. Orth, Dr. Prodromos observed the “popeye” muscle during a January 30,
2006 examination. While Dr. Prodromos opined of a mildly diminished range of
motion in the lumbar spine and some abnormalities in the left shoulder, he
recommended against bicep reattachment surgery because he considered the
procedure to only be cosmetic. Dr. Prodromos also expected Tsakalakis’s upper
extremity pain to gradually diminish. During an examination on February 7, 2006,
Dr. Shah indicated that Tsakalakis had some limitations in motion with respect to
14
back, shoulder and knee pain but found no problems with motor strength in the
upper extremities.
The only doctor cited by Tsakalakis who determined that Tsakalakis had a
reaching limitation was Dr. Giokaris. On January 10, 2006, Dr. Giokaris indicated
that Tsakalakis had limitations in reaching in all directions, including pushing,
pulling and performing fine and gross manipulations. The ALJ determined that Dr.
Giokaris’ assessment was not entirely credible. In making an RFC assessment, the
ALJ does not have to give the opinion of a physician “controlling weight” when the
opinion is not “well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other
substantial evidence in the record.” Dixon v. Massaneri, 270 F.3d 1171, 1177 (7th
Cir. 2001). Courts are required to “keep in mind the biases that a treating physician
may bring to the disability evaluation” because a “patient’s regular physician may
want to do a favor for a friend and client, and . . . may too quickly find disability.”
Id. (quoting Stephens v. Heckler, 766 F.2d 284, 289 (7th Cir. 1985)).
Here, Dr. Giokaris was Tsakalakis’ family doctor. While the ALJ considered
Dr. Giokaris’ assessment of Tsakalakis’ reaching limitations, he concluded that the
opinions of Dr. Prodromos, Dr. Orth, Dr. Shah and Dr. Young-Ja were more
compelling. He relied on the medical findings of multiple doctors determining that
Tsakalakis should not be allotted an overhead reaching limitation. Therefore, given
the reasons articulated by the ALJ, his credibility determination of Dr. Giokaris is
not “patently wrong.” Dixon, 270 F.3d at 1177. The substantial evidence in the
record supports the ALJ’s finding of no reaching limitation for Tsakalakis.
15
The ALJ also did not erroneously determine the restriction on noisy
environments. Tsakalakis argues that the RFC finding on the noisy environments’
restriction does not sufficiently address Tsakalakis’ hearing problems. Citing to the
VE’s testimony, Tsakalakis claims that a further restriction on hearing would
eliminate jobs that requires a person to adequately communicate with the public.
However, Tsakalakis’ interactions with doctors and SSA officials do not support a
finding that he cannot adequately communication with the public. While the record
indicates that Tsakalakis suffered from hearing loss for the past three decade, he
was able to find gainful employment through this time by using hearing aids. The
SSA interviewer on December 21, 2005 observed that Tsakalakis had no difficulty
hearing or speaking during the interview. When Tsakalakis appeared before the
ALJ on December 20, 2006, he had no problems communicating with the ALJ
despite wearing one hearing aid. None of the doctors noted in their reports that
Tsakalakis had difficulty communicating due to his hearing. Because the
substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination of a restriction on noisy
environments, Tsakalakis’ appeal in this regard must be denied.
Finally, the RFC included a finding as to the skill level of Tsakalakis. At the
hearing, the ALJ concluded that Tsakalakis could perform jobs in the unskilled
light occupational category. Therefore, Tsakalakis’ argument that the ALJ did not
include a finding of skill level in his RFC assessment is without merit.
16
2. Opinions of Physicians
Tsakalakis asserts that the ALJ erred in rejecting the opinions of Dr.
Prodromos, Dr. Giokaris and the doctors at Hinsdale Orthopedic Associates. He
claims that the ALJ should have given significant and controlling weight to these
doctors’ opinions in assessing his disability. Tsakalakis also maintains that the ALJ
did not articulate the rational for his decision in rejecting the credibility and
opinions of Dr. Prodromos and Giokaris.
In reviewing the ALJ’s decision, it is not the task of this Court to “reweigh
evidence, resolve conflicts in the record, [or] decide questions of credibility.” Young
v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 995, 1001 (7th Cir. 2004). The ALJ can give less weight to an
examining physician’s opinion if he considers it “in light of all of the other evidence
before him.” See id. “Weighing conflicting evidence from medical experts” is “exactly
what the ALJ is required to do.” Id. (citing Books v. Chater, 91 F.3d 972, 979 (7th
Cir. 1996)). An ALJ has a duty to “minimally articulate his or her justification for
rejecting or accepting specific evidence.” Steward v. Bowen, 858 F.2d 1295, 1299
(7th Cir. 1988). However, courts can reverse an ALJ’s RFC finding if the ALJ
improperly rejects an examining physician’s opinion in favor of a non-examining
physician’s opinion. Gudgel v. Barnhart, 345 F.3d 467, 470 (7th Cir. 2003).
Dr. Giokaris’ determination that Tsakalakis is disabled is not supported by
the record. In rejecting Dr. Giokaris’s opinion, the ALJ concluded that Dr. Giokaris’
letter on December 18, 2005 is wholly conclusory since Dr. Giokaris did not cite any
supporting objective findings in labeling Tsakalakis as disabled. Instead, the ALJ
17
relied on the opinions of treating physicians Drs. Sonnenberg, Zindrick, Nelson,
Orth and Shah in determining that Tsakalakis is not disabled. The opinions of these
doctors suggested that Tsakalakis is not disabled. Dr. Giokaris’s opinion was not
“well supported by medical findings” and is “inconsistent with other substantial
evidence in the record.” Dixon, 270 F.3d at 1177. Therefore, the ALJ’s credibility
determination of Dr. Giokaris will not be overturned because the ALJ was not
“patently wrong.” Id.
Tsakalakis’ argument that the ALJ should have given more weight to Dr.
Prodromos’ June 4, 2007 letter stating that Tsakalakis is permanently disabled is
without merit. Dr. Prodromos’ reports and statements prior to June 4, 2007 are
inconsistent with the letter. On January 30, 2006, Dr. Prodromos indicated that
besides the “popeye” muscle in Tsakalakis’ left bicep, Tsakalakis had good
maintenance in other areas of his body. At that time, Dr. Prodromos recommended
against back surgery. Despite noting Tsakalakis’ hearing loss, Dr. Prodromos did
not indicate that Tsakalakis’ hearing aids did not adequately correct the hearing
problem. Dr. Prodromos opined on July 16, 2006 that Tsakalakis showed signs of
significant improvement following the knee surgery, had a full range motion and
could perform light activities. These opinions are contrary to Dr. Prodromos’
declaration that Tsakalakis was permanently disabled on June 4, 2007.
Given the inconsistencies, it was reasonable for the ALJ to “ignore an entire
line of evidence” such as Dr. Prodromos’ June 4, 2007 letter. Henderson v. Apfel, 179
F.3d 507, 514 (7th Cir. 1999). The ALJ further articulated a minimal level of
18
analysis when he relied on the opinions of Drs. Orth, Shah, and Young-Ja, who
found Tsakalakis capable of performing light work.
Finally, Tsakalakis’ argument that the ALJ should have given more weight to
doctors at Hinsdale Orthopedic Associates fails as well. Tsakalakis asserts that
Hinsdale doctors considered Tsakalakis unable to return to work because Dr.
Zindick did not define “light duty” when he opined that Tsakalakis should remain
off work unless there was a “light duty” job. Additionally, Dr. Zindrick’s opinions
support a finding that Tsakalakis is not disabled. On September 20, 2005, Dr.
Zindrick noted that Tsakalakis had a full range of motion, had no motor
weaknesses, and was able to toe walk and heel walk. On February 22, 2006, Dr.
Zindrick merely stated that Tsakalakis should remain off of work at his current job
unless a light duty job can be identified. These statements are consistent with the
ALJ’s finding that Tsakalakis could perform light work. Nothing in the record
indicates that Dr. Zindrick meant “light duty” in a way inconsistent with the ALJ’s
interpretation. Therefore, the Court must conclude that the ALJ’s determination
was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, his decision is AFFIRMED.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
13) is DENIED and the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Affirmance (Doc. 16)
is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT in favor of
Defendant and against Plaintiff. IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
CASE TERMINATED.
Entered this 1st day of August, 2011.
s/ Joe B. McDade
JOE BILLY McDADE
United States Senior District Judge
20
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?