Stites v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
15
OPINION: Defendant Acting Commissioner of Social Security Motion for Summary Affirmance 13 is ALLOWED and Stites' Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment 10 is DENIED. The decision of the Acting Commissioner is AFFIRMED. All pending motions are denied as moot. THIS CASE IS CLOSED. Entered by Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore on 6/25/2013. (ME, ilcd)
E-FILED
Wednesday, 26 June, 2013 03:14:07 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
RONNIE K. STITES,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 12-3155
OPINION
BYRON G. CUDMORE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
Plaintiff Ronnie K. Stites appeals the denial of his application for
Supplemental Security Income (Disability Benefits) under title XVI of the
Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1381a, 1382c, and 1383(c).
Stites has filed a Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e
10), and Defendant Acting Commissioner of Social Security
(Commissioner) has filed a Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e13).1 The
parties consented, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), to proceed before this
Court. Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate and Order of
1
Carolyn Colvin is now Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Motion for Summary Affirmance, at 1
n.1. Colvin is, therefore, automatically substituted in as the Defendant in this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).
Page 1 of 35
Reference, entered November 1, 2012 (d/e 9). For the reasons set forth
below, the Decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Stites was born on November 26, 1966. He secured a GED. He
suffers from plantar fasciitis of the left foot, lower back pain, urinary
frequency, obesity, bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, major
depressive disorder, dysthymic disorder, and antisocial personality
disorder. R. 31, 54.
Stites received Disability Benefits from 1989 until 2006. The
Disability Benefits stopped when Stites began serving a term of
imprisonment after his convictions for aggravated DUI and driving on
revoked license. He was released 5, 2008, and applied for Disability
Benefits on December 8, 2008. R. 14. Stites has no relevant past work
history. R. 37-38.
On December 15, 2008, Stites went to Transitions of Western Illinois
(Transitions) for counseling. The counselors prepared a case opening
assessment at that time. Stites reported that he had problems dealing with
other people. He easily got upset, frustrated and angry with others. He
also felt depressed. He stated he wanted to learn how to handle his
response to other people and to become less depressed. R. 366. Stites
Page 2 of 35
did not report having any hallucinations or suicidal ideations. R. 407.
Stites reported that he was under the care of Dr. Sanchez for psychiatric
reasons in 2006. R. 367. Stites reported that he underwent inpatient
psychiatric treatment twice, both more than five years earlier. R. 367.
Stites reported that he was divorced and was living with his girlfriend
Camillia Jessie. He reported that Jessie had been his girlfriend for three
years. He reported that he had daily contact with his 17 year old daughter
Caroline. He reported that she did not live with him. R. 411.
The counselors at Transitions assessed Stites to have a flat affect
and depressed mood, and guarded demeanor. Stites also showed poor
insight and poor judgment. R. 375. The counselors diagnosed Stites with
dysthymic disorder; polysubstance abuse, early full remission; and
antisocial personality disorder. R. 376. The counselors gave him a Global
Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score of 45. The counselors noted that
Stites had a serious impairment in social and occupational functioning. The
counselors further recommended a psychiatric evaluation. R. 378.
On December 18, 2009, Stites’ girlfriend Jessie completed a Function
Report, Adult Third Party form. R. 198-205. Jessie reported that she had
known Stites for three years. Stites lived with her and her ten year old son.
She reported that Stites mostly watched television during the day. She
Page 3 of 35
cooked and did the household chores for Stites. Stites dressed himself and
took care of his own personal care, although he did not shave as often as
she would like. He did not need special reminders to care for himself or
take medication, except that she had to remind him to shave. He did some
household repairs and mowing. She reported that he complained about
back pain when he did these chores. He helped discipline her son. She
reported that he went shopping with her. He did not go by himself. She
reported that he was not able to handle money. She reported that he did
not like to socialize and mainly spent his time with her. He spent some
time with his daughter. She reported that he had memory problems and
could not concentrate all the way through watching a movie. She reported
that he followed spoken instructions “pretty good.” R. 202.
On December 18, 2008, Stites filled out a Function Report – Adult
form. Stites reported that he lived with his girlfriend and her son. He
reported that he spent his time watching television and talking on the
phone. Stites reported that he had trouble remembering things. He also
reported having racing thoughts. He reported that he dressed himself and
took care of his own personal care. He reported that he could not prepare
meals because he had no patience and could not focus. He reported that
he could walk four blocks. He could only pay attention for short periods.
Page 4 of 35
He reported that he did not get along with authority figures at all. R. 21421. Stites reported that his ability to follow spoken instructions was
“sometimes good.” R. 219.
On January 6, 2009, Stites saw a counselor at Transitions. The
counselor talked with Stites about needing to be more social and finding
ways to get out more. R. 433. On January 9, 2009, Stites again saw a
counselor again at Transitions. The counselor discussed the possibility of
seeing a psychiatrist. Stites stated that he was not interested in seeing a
psychiatrist at that time. He was happy with his current counseling. R.
430.
On January 10, 2009, state agency physician Dr. Raymond Leung,
M.D., performed a consultative physical examination of Stites. R. 355-60.
Stites reported having low back pain and decreased memory. Stites stated
that he thought the memory impairment came from his past drug use. He
reported that he quit all drugs in November 2006. Dr. Leung reported that
the medical history was significant for bipolar disease and schizoaffective
disorder. Stites did not use a cane or walker to walk. Stites reported that
he could walk two blocks and lift five pounds. R. 355. On examination, Dr.
Leung stated, “From observation, I do believe that the claimant may have
difficulties managing his own funds due to decreased memory.” R. 456.
Page 5 of 35
Stites was six feet one-quarter inch tall and weighed 268 pounds. Stites
walked “slightly slow and stiff.” R. 357. Stites extension of the lumbar
spine was limited to five degrees. Dr. Leung’s impression was low back
pain and decreased short term memory. R. 357.
On January 15, 2009, state agency psychologist Dr. Frank Froman,
Ed.D., conducted a consultative psychological examination of Stites. Dr.
Froman diagnosed schizoaffective disorder and antisocial personality traits.
He gave Stites a GAF score of 48. Dr. Froman opined,
CONCLUSIONS: Ronnie appears able to perform one
and two-step assemblies at a competitive rate. He is not able
to relate adequately to coworkers and supervisors. He
understands simple oral and written instructions but because of
memory loss, is unlikely to be able to retain oral instruction at
all. He is able to manage cash benefits with the assistance of
his fiancé. It is most unlikely that he would be able to withstand
the stress associated with customary employment.
R. 361-64 (emphasis in the original).
On January 23, 2009, Stites saw a counselor at Transitions of
Western Illinois, to address problems with anger. R. 432.
On January 28, 2009, state agency physician Dr. Towfig Arjmand,
M.D., prepared a Physical Residual Functional Capacity Assessment of
Stites. R. 381-87. Dr. Arjmand opined that Stites could lift twenty pounds
occasionally and ten pounds frequently; stand and/or walk six hours in an
eight-hour workday; sit six hours in an eight-hour workday; frequently climb
Page 6 of 35
ramp and stairs; occasionally climb ladders, ropes, and scaffolds; and
crouch no more than frequently. R. 381-82.
On February 3, 2009, state agency psychologist Dr. Joseph Mehr,
Ph.D., prepared a Psychiatric Review Technique Form and a Mental
Residual Functional Capacity Assessment. R. 388-405. Dr. Mehr opined
that Stites suffered from dysthymic disorder versus schizoaffective
disorder; antisocial personality disorder; and alcoholism in remission. R.
391, 395-96. Dr. Mehr opined that Stites had moderate restrictions on
activities of daily living, moderate difficulties in maintaining social
functioning, and moderate difficulties in maintaining concentration,
persistence, or pace. Dr. Mehr opined that Stites had no episodes of
decompensation. R. 398. Dr. Mehr noted, “He appears to have some
difficulty in relating wel (sic) to others, but does have a girlfriend. ADLs
indicate he prefers not to socialize, but is able to do simple daily tasks such
as chores.” R. 400.
Dr. Mehr further opined that Stites was moderately limited in his
ability to: understand and remember detailed instructions; carry out detailed
instructions; perform activities within a schedule and maintain regular
attendance, and be punctual; complete a normal workday and workweek
without interruptions from psychological symptoms; interact appropriately
Page 7 of 35
with the public; accept instructions and respond appropriately to criticism
from supervisors; and respond appropriately to changes in the work setting.
R. 402-03.
On February 27, 2009, Stites saw a counselor at Transitions. The
counselor discussed situations in which Stites’ frustration level increased
and how to address these situations and how to address his anger in these
situations. The counselor gave Stites an anger worksheet to complete. R.
434.
On March 20, 2009, Stites saw a counselor at Transitions. Stites
brought the anger worksheet back with him. The counselor discussed
ways to communicate anger effectively. The counselor also prompted
Stites to name people he can use as a support group. The counselor
noted, “Ronnie was open & responsive to questions. He realizes learning
to deal with his anger is very important and that having positive people in
his life is crucial to his wellbeing.” R. 429.
On April 4, 2009, Stites completed a Function Report – Adult form.
R. 245-52. Stites reported that he had difficulties dressing himself and
caring for himself. He reported that he had to be reminded to shave,
shower, and take his medicine. He reported that he had trouble standing
for any period of time. He reported being afraid of people. He reported
Page 8 of 35
that he talked to his girlfriend and her son once a day because they lived
with him. He reported that once or twice a month he went “to church to
eat.” R. 249. He reported being in constant pain. He reported that he
could walk half a block. He reported that he did not follow spoken
instructions well at all. R. 250.
On June 4, 2009, state agency psychologist Dr. Patricia Beers, PhD.,
affirmed the opinions of Dr. Mehr. R. 444-46.
On August 13, 2009, Stites saw Dr. Ben Wilde, D.O., for back and
shoulder pain.2 Stites also reported having chest pains and shortness of
breath once a night before going to bed. Stites reported racing thoughts
and feeling anxious. He reported using a cane to walk. His psychiatrist at
Transitions, Dr. Valentina Vrtikapa, M.D., changed his medication to try to
address his anxiety. Dr. Wilde prescribed physical therapy and stretching
exercises for the back pain. R. 449-50.
On October 5, 2009, Stites saw Dr. Wilde for palpitations that had
gone on for a month. He reported that they were worse at night. He also
reported shortness of breath and chest pain. His EKG was normal. Dr.
2
The records sometimes indicate that Dr. Wilde is an M.D., but other places indicate that he is a D.O.
See e.g., R. 478 (M.D.); but see R. 481 (D.O). His formal signature block on R. 481 and elsewhere uses
D.O., so the Court uses D.O. Dr. Wiles is an acceptable medical source regardless of whether he is a
medical doctor or a doctor of osteopathy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513(a) and 416.913(a).
Page 9 of 35
Wilde diagnosed palpitations. Dr. Wilde also gave Stites trigger point
injections for lower back pain. R. 480-81.
On October 28, 2009, Stites saw Dr. Wilde again. Dr. Wilde
recommended physical therapy, but Stites refused because he was too
anxious to go. Dr. Wilde reported that Dr. Vrtikapa changed Stites’
psychiatric medication because the prior medication was causing
palpitations. Dr. Wilde diagnosed chronic lower back pain and plantar
fasciitis. R. 477-78.
On December 4, 2009, Stites saw Dr. Wilde for a follow-up. Dr. Wilde
diagnosed anxiety and shortness of breath. Dr. Wilde indicated that due to
his anxiety, Stites would not go to a hospital. R. 475.
On April 6, 2010, Stites saw Dr. Vrtikapa for medication monitoring.
R. 527-29. Stites was anxious and down. Stites reported that he heard
voices, but denied any command hallucinations. Stites denied having any
suicidal or homicidal ideations. R. 528. Dr. Vrtikapa increased the dosage
of Stites medication and scheduled Stites for another visit in four weeks. R.
528-29.
On April 13, 2010, one of Stites’ counselors at Transitions, Kendra
Bartz, completed a form entitled, “Medical Source Statement of Ability to do
Work-Related Activities (Mental).” R. 488-90, 571-75. Bartz opined that
Page 10 of 35
Stites had mild restrictions on his ability to understand and remember
simple instructions; no restrictions in carrying out simple instructions;
moderate restrictions on his ability to make judgments on simple workrelated decisions and to understand and remember complex instructions;
and marked restrictions on his ability to carry out complex instructions and
to make judgments on complex work-related decisions.3 R. 488. Bartz
stated,
Due to client’s mental illness, client has extreme problems that
impact daily functioning. Depression/anxiety make his ability to
carry out work-related abilities difficult. However client is able
to carry out simple instructions and follow directions properly.
R. 488.
Bartz opined that Stites had marked restrictions on his ability to
interact appropriately with the public; extreme restrictions in his ability to
interact appropriately with supervisors and co-workers; and marked
restrictions in his ability to respond appropriately to usual work situations
and to changes in a routine work setting. R. 489. Bartz stated,
Client has extreme symptoms of depression Dx of major
depressive, schizoaffective, dysthymic disorder + antisocial
personality disorder. Client battles anger due to his mtl illness.
3
Bartz scratched out and initialed the first set of marks she made in rating Stites’ restrictions in these
areas, and on other parts of this form. See R. 488, 490. The Court refers to the Bartz’s final ratings
rather than the ones she scratched out and initialed.
Page 11 of 35
R. 489. Bartz agreed with Stites that his disability began on September 1,
1987. R. 490. Bartz also noted that Stites had a history of substance
abuse, but currently reported that he was not using any alcohol or other
drugs. R. 490.
On April 15, 2010, Stites went to Transitions to meet with his
counselor. R. 525-26. Stites rated his depression as a 9 on a scale of 1 to
10. He reported no suicidal or homicidal thoughts. R. 526.
On April 15, 2010, Stites saw Certified Nurse Practitioner Julie Barry
at Blessing Hospital in Quincy, Illinois, for a periodic follow up evaluation.4
R. 531-32. Stites complained of anxiety and difficulty sleeping. He also
reported low back pain and heel pain. He also reported difficulty urinating
and transient, sharp chest pain. Barry noted that Stites had a flat affect.
Stites reported being anxious around people. Stites did not appear anxious
during the visit. Barry scheduled Stites for another visit at the Outreach
Clinic in a month. R. 531.
On May 12, 2010, Stites’s case manager at Transitions, Katie
Wiskirchen, prepared a service plan for Stites for six months. R. 513-16.
Wiskirchen gave Stites a GAF score of 45. R. 513. Wiskirchen stated that
Stites had “anger and depression evidenced by outbursts and strained
4
The medical records identify Barry both as an M.D. and a CNP. R. 532. Barry’s revised signature
indicates CNP, so the Court will identify her that way.
Page 12 of 35
relationships resulting in increase of anger and depressive symptoms.” R.
514.
On June 15, 2010, Stites saw Dr. Vrtikapa for medication monitoring.
R. 518-20. Stites reported that he was hearing voices at times, but denied
any suicidal ideations. R. 519. Dr. Vrtikapa continued Stites current
treatment and scheduled him for another visit in six weeks. R. 519-20.
On August 10, 2010, Stites saw Dr. Vrtikapa for medication
monitoring. R. 591-93. Stites displayed a neutral mood. He reported
hearing voices, but no commands. He denied any suicidal or homicidal
ideations. R. 592.
In August 2010, Bartz reaffirmed the opinions she set forth in her
April 2013 Medical Source Statement. R. 571-75.
On September 15, 2010, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
conducted an evidentiary hearing by video conference. The ALJ conducted
the hearing in Chicago, Illinois. Stites and his attorney appeared by video
conference from Hannibal, Missouri. A vocational expert Carl Barchi
appeared by telephone. R. 12.
Stites testified first. Stites testified that he was unable to work,
Because I’ve got bipolar disorder and I have memory loss and
anxiety and pain in my lower back and pain in my left heel in my
foot and I have a fear of people. I’m afraid they’re out to get
me, and I can’t lift any weight because of my lower back.
Page 13 of 35
R. 16. Stites testified that he has been seeing Dr. Vrtikapa since he was
released from prison.5 R. 16. He initially saw Dr. Vrtikapa once a month;
by the time of the hearing, he was seeing her once every two months. R.
16-17. In addition, Stites saw a counselor at Transitions on a weekly basis.
R. 18-19. Stites testified that his girlfriend drove him to his appointments
at Transitions. R. 19. Stites testified that he lived with his girlfriend and her
ten year-old child. R. 20. He lived with her before he was incarcerated and
came back to live with her upon his release from prison. R. 23.
Stites testified that he heard voices of people talking to him. He also
saw “ghost people.” The ghost people were dead. R. 27. He testified that
sometimes the voices told him to hurt himself. He testified that the voices
told him to hurt himself about once a day. R. 28. He testified that the ghost
people tried to talk to him. R. 28. He saw the ghost people, “Like once a
day and sometimes it’s not for days.” R. 28. He testified that he has been
hearing voices since 1987. R. 29.
Stites testified that he was taking medicines for his psychiatric
conditions, but the medication was unhelpful. Stites testified that he still felt
depressed and could not “manage myself out in public or anything like
5
The court reported spelled Dr. Vrtikapa’s name phonetically as Dr. Brotakoppa and Dr. Vertakoper. R.
16 and R. 30.
Page 14 of 35
that.” R. 17. Stites explained that he had a bad temper when he was
around people, and so, avoided going out anywhere. R. 17-18. Stites
testified that he still heard the voices. R. 28.
The ALJ asked Stites how his mental condition affected him. Stites
responded, “It affects me in the way where I want to hurt myself at times
and I just don’t want to talk to nobody and stuff like that.” R. 24. Under
questioning by his counsel, Stites stated the he got “real nervous and
sweaty palms” when he was around other people. R. 29. He testified that
he got very aggravated if someone told him what to do, “To the point where
I’m yelling and screaming, hollering.” R. 29. He testified that would start
screaming when “things won’t go my way.” R. 30.
Stites testified that he had heel pain from plantar fasciitis. He testified
that he had a steroid injection in March 2010, but it did not help. He still
had pain every day. R. 20. Stites wore inserts in his shoes for the
condition. Stites testified that the inserts did not help either. Stites testified
that he felt the heel pain all of the time, regardless of whether he was on or
off of his feet. He testified that the doctors recommended massaging the
foot, soaking the foot in hot water, staying off hard floors, and always
wearing shoes. R. 21. Stites testified that he took Neurontin and
Gabapentin for his heel and back pain. R. 22.
Page 15 of 35
Stites testified that his back pain started in 2006 when he fell down a
flight of stairs. The doctors diagnosed arthritis in his back. R. 22. Stites
testified that his back pain sometimes radiated down both his legs to his
knees. Stites testified that the back pain was worse when he moved
around. R. 31. Stites testified that the doctors recommended exercise and
physical therapy. R. 22. Stites testified that he had not yet started physical
therapy. He testified, “I just got the order in the last week.” R. 22
Stites testified that he could stand for five to fifteen minutes at a time,
sit for fifteen minutes at a time, and walk short distances. R. 23. Stites
testified that he could lift a gallon of milk with pain. R. 35. He testified that
his physical condition has remained the same since he fell in 2006. R. 24.
Stites testified that he also had bladder problems. Stites testified that
he had to use a catheter three times a day to empty his bladder. He
testified that he had scar tissue from the catheters. R. 33.
Stites testified that in a typical day, he watched television for about
twelve hours. R. 24. He spent most of the day in bed. R. 34. Stites
testified that he did not take naps or nod off during the day. R. 34. Stites
did not have any problems concentrating on the television programs. R.
30. Stites testified that he sometimes cooked, but did not do housework or
yard work. R. 24. Stites testified that he collected Hot Wheels toy cars.
Page 16 of 35
He used a computer once to read his mail over the Internet. R. 27. Stites
testified that he only left the house to go to appointments. He testified that
his girlfriend drove him. R. 25-26. Stites’ girlfriend was disabled and did
not work. Stites testified that the girlfriend cared for her daughter. R. 2426. Stites’ girlfriend also did all the shopping. R. 26.
Stites testified that he was unable to sleep because he had racing
thoughts. He testified that it took him hours to fall asleep. He testified that
he also regularly woke up to use the bathroom. He testified that he usually
woke up once a night. He testified that he was not refreshed in the
morning, but felt moody. R. 33-34.
Stites testified that while he was in prison he only received ibuprofen
for his back and foot pain. He saw a psychiatrist once while in prison. He
received no psychiatric medicines. He testified that he had flare ups and
mood swings, but did not get into any trouble fighting. R. 33.
The vocational expert Barchi then testified. The ALJ asked Barchi a
series of hypothetical questions. For each question, the ALJ asked Barchi
to assume a person of Stites’ age with a GED and no past relevant work.
The ALJ asked Barchi to assume such a person could perform light work,
but would not be able to climb ladders, ropes of scaffolds and would only
be able to crouch and climb stairs and ramps frequently; could only perform
Page 17 of 35
“simple, routine, repetitive tasks in a work environment free of fast paced
production requirements involving only simple work related decisions and
with few if any work place changes.” R. 37-38. The person also could not
interact with the public and could only interact occasionally with coworkers.
R. 38. The ALJ asked, “Based on those limitations would there be any jobs
that the individual could perform in the economy?” R. 38.
Barchi opined that such a person could perform unskilled factory work
such as assembly and packaging work. He also opined that such a person
could perform cleaning and food preparation activities. He opined that
15,000 packer jobs existed in Missouri, 12,500 light cleaning jobs existed in
Missouri, 1,600 food preparation jobs that did not involve contact with the
public existed in Missouri. R. 39.
The ALJ then asked Barchi to assume the person needed to alternate
between sitting and standing so long as they were not off task more than
ten percent of the time as a result. R. 41. Barchi opined that this additional
limitation would not affect the ability of the person to perform the jobs
described in his opinion. R. 41.
The ALJ also asked Barchi to assume the person described in the
hypothetical question had to avoid all contact with the public or coworkers.
Barchi opined that this additional limitation would eliminate about fifty
Page 18 of 35
percent of the jobs he previously identified because of the limitation of no
contact with coworkers. R. 42-43.
The ALJ asked Barchi whether a person could work if he had to miss
three days of work per month. Barchi opined that such a person could not
work. R. 43. Barchi further opined that a person could not work if the
“individual has no ability whatsoever to interact appropriately with a
supervisor.” R. 43. Barchi further opined that a person could not work if he
could not remember oral or written instructions. R. 44. Barchi finally
opined that a person could not work if he had “a marked impairment in the
ability to interact appropriately with the public; extreme impairments in the
ability to interact appropriately with supervisors and coworkers and a
marked impairment in the ability to respond appropriately to usual work
situations and to changes in a routine work setting.” R. 45. The ALJ then
concluded the hearing.
THE DECISION OF THE ALJ
The ALJ issued his decision on November 10, 2010. R. 52-63. The
ALJ followed the five-step analysis set forth in Social Security
Administration Regulations (Analysis). 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920.
Step 1 requires that the claimant not be currently engaged in substantial
gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). If true, Step 2
Page 19 of 35
requires the claimant to have a severe impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520(c), 416.920(c). If true, Step 3 requires a determination of
whether the claimant is so severely impaired that he is disabled regardless
of the claimant's age, education and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520(d), 416.920(d). To meet this requirement at Step 3, the
claimant's condition must meet, or be medically equivalent to, one of the
impairments specified in 20 C.F.R. Part 404 Subpart P, Appendix 1
(Listing). 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). If the claimant’s
impairments, combination of impairments, do not meet or equal a Listing,
then the ALJ proceeds to Step 4.
If the claimant is not so severely impaired, then Step 4 requires the
claimant not to be able to return to his prior work considering his age,
education, work experience, and Residual Functional Capacity (RFC). 20
C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). If the claimant cannot return to his
prior work, then Step 5 requires a determination of whether the claimant is
disabled considering his RFC, age, education, and past work experience.
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). The claimant has the burden of
presenting evidence and proving the issues on the first four steps. The
Commissioner has the burden on the last step; the Commissioner must
show that, considering the listed factors, the claimant can perform some
Page 20 of 35
type of gainful employment that exists in the national economy. Briscoe ex
rel. Taylor v. Barnhart, 425 F.3d 345, 352 (7th Cir. 2005); Knight v. Chater,
55 F.3d 309, 313 (7th Cir. 1995).
The ALJ found that Stites met his burden at Steps 1 and 2. He had
not engaged in substantial gainful activity since December 8, 2008, when
he filed his application, and he suffered from severe impairments of plantar
fasciitis of the left foot, low back pain, urinary frequency, obesity, bipolar
disorder, schizoaffective disorder, major depressive disorder, dysthymic
disorder and antisocial personality disorder. R. 54.
At Step 3, the ALJ found that Stites’ impairments, or combination of
impairments, did not meet or equal a Listing. The ALJ found that Stites’
back pain did not meet Listing 1.04 for disorders of the spine, and his
plantar fasciitis and urinary frequency did not meet any of the
musculoskeletal Listings 1.00, and Genitourinary Listings 6.00,
respectively. R. 54.
The ALJ found that Stites’ mental conditions did not meet Listings
12.03 for schizophrenic disorders, 12.04 for affective disorders, and 12.08
for personality disorders. R. 55. In Paragraph B of each of these three
Listings, the person must have mental impairments that result in two of the
following: marked restrictions on activities of daily living; marked difficulties
Page 21 of 35
in maintaining social functioning; marked difficulties in maintaining
concentration, persistence, or pace; or repeated episodes of
decompensation, each of extended duration. R. 55; Listings 12.03(B);
12.04(B); 12.08(B). The ALJ found no evidence of decompensation and
only moderate restrictions or difficulties in each of the other three
categories.
The ALJ found that the evidence showed that Stites’ limitations in
daily activities resulted primarily from back pain and plantar fasciitis rather
than mental impairments. The ALJ found some mental limitations on daily
activities because Stites’ anxiety and phobias affected his ability to leave
the house. The ALJ found that the opinions of Drs. Mehr and Beers
supported his finding of moderate limitations. R. 55.
The ALJ found that Stites had some ability to engage in social
functioning. The ALJ noted that Stites has maintained a relationship with
his girlfriend for four years even while he was incarcerated, he went to
church twice a month, and he talked on the phone daily with his daughter.
The ALJ also noted that he had no problems interacting with doctors and
counselors and he did not get into fights at prison. The ALJ found that the
opinions of Drs. Mehr and Beers supported his finding of moderate
limitations. R. 55.
Page 22 of 35
The ALJ found that Stites had some ability to concentrate because
his girlfriend reported that he could follow spoken instructions pretty good,
and he could concentrate at the hearing. The ALJ also relied on the
opinions of Drs. Mehr and Beers to conclude that Stites’ had moderate
limitations in this area. R. 55-56.6
At Step 4, the ALJ found that Stites had the RFC to perform light
work, but he: must be allowed the option to sit or stand at will provided he
is off task no more than ten percent of the time; can only occasionally climb
ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; can only frequently crouch or climb stairs or
ramps; can only perform simple, routine and repetitive tasks in a work
environment free from fast paced production requirements and involving
only simple, work-related decisions with few if any work place changes;
cannot interact with the public; and may only occasionally interact with
coworkers. R. 56. The ALJ relied on the opinions of Drs. Arjmand, Mehr
and Beers in making this RFC determination. R. 60.
In making the RFC finding, the ALJ found that Stites’ claims regarding
the severity of his symptoms and limitations was not credible. The ALJ
stated that Stites testified at the hearing that he could only sit or stand for
6
A person’s impairments could also meet each of these Listings if he met the requirements of paragraph
C of each Listing (rather than paragraph B). The ALJ found no evidence that Stites met the requirements
of paragraph C. R. 56; see Listing 12.03(C), 12.04(C), and 12.08(C). Stites does not challenge this
finding.
Page 23 of 35
fifteen minutes, walk half a block and lift four pounds. The ALJ also noted
that Stites testified that he stayed home “practically all the time,” and had
minimal social contacts. The ALJ noted that Stites told Dr. Leung he could
walk two blocks and lift five pounds. R. 57. The ALJ further noted that the
doctors only recommended home exercises and soaking his feet. R. 59.
The ALJ noted that Stites avoided physical therapy. The ALJ stated that
his claims were inconsistent with medical examinations that showed good
range of motion. The ALJ also noted that Stites testimony was
contradicted by his girlfriend. She stated that Stites handled his own
personal care, mowed the lawn, did household repairs and went out to
shop. R. 59. The ALJ also found that Stites had no problems
concentrating during the hearing. R. 59. The ALJ noted that Stites claimed
to have anger problems, but the evidence revealed no incidents of anger in
interactions with medical professionals or state agency employees. R. 60.
The ALJ also noted that Stites testified that he had trouble sleeping, but he
reported to Dr. Froman that he slept eight hours a day. R. 58. The ALJ
found, “Each one of these factors harms the credibility of the claimant’s
allegations and strongly advises against finding greater restrictions than I
have stated.” R. 60.
Page 24 of 35
The ALJ gave little weight to Dr. Froman’s opinions.7 The ALJ found
them inconsistent with other parts of the record. The ALJ also found that
Dr. Froman’s opinions were inconsistent with the evidence he cited to
support his findings at Step 3. The ALJ stated that Dr. Froman did not find
Stites to be disabled and did not consider the “effect of reasonable
occupational restrictions on the claimant’s ability to work.” R. 61. The ALJ
found little or no support in the record for Dr. Froman’s opinion that Stites
could not follow spoken instructions. The ALJ cited the girlfriend Jessie’s
statement that Stites could follow directions and the ALJ’s observations of
Stites at the hearing. R. 61. The ALJ explained,
My residual functional capacity [finding] takes into account the
claimant’s social difficulties and concentration-related difficulties
by limiting him to no public interactions and only occasional
interaction with coworkers. Simple, routine and repetitive tasks
is proper, with few changes, thus limiting the claimant’s
exposure to stress and the extent and complexity of spoken
instructions.
R. 61.
The ALJ gave the opinion of Bartz little weight because she was not
an acceptable medical source; she opined about Stites’ condition at the
onset date of January 8, 2008, but she first met Stites in late 2008; she
gave her opinions a year after she stopped counseling Stites; she had no
7
The ALJ incorrectly referred to Dr. Froman by his first name, Dr. Frank. R. 60. The error was harmless.
Page 25 of 35
information of how Stites ever interacted with any coworkers because he
was not working when she counseled him; and her opinions contradicted
her notes which indicated that his attention and memory were within normal
limits, that the medications had a fair impact on Stites’ symptoms, and that
he was no longer having suicidal ideations. R. 61.
Based on the RFC determination the ALJ found at Step 5 that Stites
could perform a substantial number of jobs that exist in the national
economy. R. 62. The ALJ relied on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, 20
C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart p, Appendix 2, and the opinions of vocational
expert Barchi that Stites could perform the factory jobs, cleaning jobs, and
food preparation jobs. R. 62.
The ALJ also found that the Commissioner met his burden at Step 5
even if Stites’ RFC was modified to limit him to no contact with any
coworkers, “Lastly, if the residual functional capacity above were retained,
further reducing the claimant’s interactions with co-workers to none, 50% of
the general factory, light cleaning and food preparation would remain,
enough to be a significant number.” R. 63. The ALJ concluded that Stites
was not disabled. R. 63.
Stites appealed the ALJ’s decision. On April 6, 2012, the Appeals
Council denied Stites’ request for review. The decision of the ALJ then
Page 26 of 35
became the decision of the Commissioner. R. 69. Stites then brought this
action for judicial review.
ANALYSIS
This Court reviews the Decision of the Commissioner to determine
whether it is supported by substantial evidence. In making this review, the
Court considers the evidence that was before the ALJ. Wolfe v. Shalala,
997 F.2d 321, 322 n.3 (7th Cir. 1993). Substantial evidence is “such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate” to
support the decision. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971).
This Court must accept the findings if they are supported by substantial
evidence, and may not substitute its judgment. Delgado v. Bowen, 782
F.2d 79, 82 (7th Cir. 1986). This Court will not review the credibility
determinations of the ALJ unless the determinations lack any explanation
or support in the record. Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 413-14 (7th Cir.
2008). The ALJ must articulate at least minimally his analysis of all
relevant evidence. Herron v. Shalala, 19 F.3d 329, 333 (7th Cir. 1994).
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).
In this case, the decision is supported by substantial evidence. The
ALJ’s findings at Steps 1 and 2 are undisputed. The ALJ’s findings at Step
Page 27 of 35
3 that Stites did not meet Listing 1.04 are supported by Dr. Leung’s
examination and the opinion of Drs. Arjmand. The finding that Stites did
not meet Listings 12.03, 12.04, and 12.08 are supported by the evidence
cited by the ALJ and the opinions of Drs. Mehr and Beers. The ALJ’s RFC
finding at Step 4 is supported by the opinions of Drs. Arjmand, Mehr, and
Beers. The finding at Step 5 is supported by the opinions of vocational
expert Barchi.
Stites argues that the ALJ erred at Step 3 by finding that Stites did
not meet the mental health Listings, 12.03, 12.04, and 12.08. Stites argues
that the ALJ ignored the evidence from Drs. Leung and Froman, and
counselor Bartz. The Court disagrees. The ALJ did not mention the
opinions of these three during his analysis of these three Listings at Step 3;
however, the ALJ did address the opinions of Dr. Froman and Bartz
directly. R. 60-61. The ALJ explained why he gave those opinions little
weight. The ALJ found Dr. Froman’s opinion regarding Stites’ ability to
retain and follow instructions to be inconsistent with Jessie’s statement.
The ALJ found Bartz’s opinion that Stites was extremely limited in his
ability to interact with others was inconsistent with Stites’ interactions with
Jessie and her son, with Stites’ daughter, with health care professionals,
and with the ALJ at the hearing; and with Stites’ regular attendance at
Page 28 of 35
church. The ALJ also found that these opinions were inconsistent with the
opinions of Drs. Mehr and Beers. Thus, the ALJ logically explained the
basis for his treatment of the opinions of Dr. Froman and Bartz based on
evidence in the record. See Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d at 872.
The ALJ also considered that Bartz was not an acceptable medical
source such as a doctor or licensed psychologist. See 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1513(a) and 416.913(a). As such, Bartz’s opinion is not entitled to be
given any particular weight. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d) and 416.927(d).
The opinion, however, is relevant and the ALJ must consider it. SSR 963p. The ALJ did so. The ALJ concluded that the opinion should be given
little weight, but he did consider it. R. 61.
The ALJ did not directly address in his opinion Dr. Leung’s opinion
that Stites might have difficulty managing his own funds due to decreased
memory. The Court sees no error because handling one’s finances is not
directly at issue in this case, and because the ALJ addressed Stites’
memory problems in his decision. The ALJ found moderate restrictions on
concentration, persistence or pace at Step 3, in part, because of Stites’
memory problems. R. 55. The ALJ also addressed the memory problems
at Step 4 as part of his problems with concentration, persistence or pace.
The ALJ limited Stites’ RFC to “[s]imple, routine and repetitive tasks . . .
Page 29 of 35
with few changes,” to limit Sties’ “exposure to stress,” and also “the extent
and complexity of spoken instructions.” R. 61. Therefore, the ALJ
considered and addressed Stites’ memory problems. There was no error in
not mentioning this sentence in Dr. Leung’s report.
Stites argues that the ALJ should have found him disabled because
of his GAF scores. Stites urges the Court to follow persuasive authority
that holds that the ALJ must consider a claimant’s GAF score history and a
GAF score below 50 is evidence of disability. See Pate-Fires v. Astrue,
564 F.3d 935, 944 (8th Cir. 2009). The Seventh Circuit has rejected such
reliance of GAF scores. The Seventh Circuit noted that the score rates the
worst of either a patient’s symptoms or his functional limitations. “[T]he
score does not reflect the clinician’s opinion of functional capacity.
Accordingly, ‘nowhere do the Social Security regulations or case law
require the ALJ to determine the extent of an individual’s disability based
entirely on his GAF score.’” Denton v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 419, 425 (7th Cir.
2010) (quoting Wilkins v. Barnhart, 69 Fed. Appx. 775, 780 (7th Cir. 2003)).
This Court will follow the Seventh Circuit. The properly ALJ considered the
GAF scores along with other evidence. See R. 58-59. There was no error
in the consideration of GAF scores.
Page 30 of 35
Stites argues that the ALJ erred because he should not have relied
on the opinions of Drs. Arjmand, Mehr, and Beers, but should have credited
the opinions of Dr. Froman, the statement by Dr. Leung, and the opinions
of Bartz. Stites essentially asks the Court to reweigh the evidence. He
argues The Court does not reweigh the evidence. See Schmidt v. Astrue,
496 F.3d 833, 841 (7th Cir. 2007). The ALJ explained why he gave greater
weight to the opinions of Drs. Mehr and Beers. The ALJ further explained
why he did not give weight to the opinions of Dr. Froman and Bartz. The
ALJ, thus, built a logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusion. See
Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d at 872. The Court will not reweigh this evidence.
The Court notes that Bartz’s opinions regarding Stites’ memory is
consistent with the ALJ’s findings and contradicts Dr. Froman’s opinion and
Dr. Leung’s comment regarding memory loss. Bartz opined that Stites had
mild restrictions on his ability to understand and remember simple
instructions; no restrictions in carrying out simple instructions; and
moderate restrictions on his ability to make judgments on simple workrelated decisions and to understand and remember complex instructions.
R. 488. Bartz’s opinions on these matters are consistent with the opinions
of Drs. Mehr and Beers, and the RFC findings of the ALJ.
Page 31 of 35
Bartz’s opinions are also consistent with the ALJ’s alternative finding
at Step 5. Bartz’s primarily opined that Stites could not get along with other
people and could not handle to changes in his routine. R. 489. The ALJ
limited Stites’ RFC to few if any work place changes. The ALJ further
found that Stites could perform a significant number of jobs in the national
economy even if he was limited to no contact with coworkers as well as no
contact with the public. R. 63. Vocational expert Barchi’s testimony
supported this finding. This finding is consistent with Bartz’s opinion that
Stites could not handle contact with either coworkers or the public. Thus,
even if the ALJ gave more credit to Bartz’s opinion, the outcome would not
have changed.
Stites argues that the ALJ erred in making the RFC determination.
Stites argues that the ALJ failed to include additional limitations in the RFC
determination to account for Stites’ difficulty in relating to others and in his
memory loss. The Court disagrees. The ALJ limited the RFC to simple
repetitive tasks, to no contact with the public, and only limited contact with
coworkers. The ALJ used these limitations on the RFC to address these
issues. The ALJ’s decision to do so is supported by the opinions of Drs.
Mehr and Beers, as well as the other evidence on which the ALJ relied.
The ALJ’s FRC determination is supported by substantial evidence.
Page 32 of 35
Stites argues that the ALJ’s credibility determination was erroneous.
This Court will not review the credibility determinations of the ALJ unless
the determinations lack any explanation or support in the record. Elder v.
Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 413-14 (7th Cir. 2008). The record shows several
inconsistencies in Stites’ representations. Stites reported in December
2008 that he could dress himself, take care of his personal needs, and walk
four blocks. By April 2009, Stites reported that he could not dress himself,
could not care for his personal needs and could only walk half a block. In
January 2009, Stites told Dr. Leung that he did not use a cane to walk. By
August 2009, Stites told Dr. Wilde that he used a cane to walk. Stites,
however, testified that his physical condition had not changed since 2006.
R. 24. Stites also told Dr. Froman that he slept eight hours a day, but he
testified at the hearing that he could not sleep at all at night and did not
sleep during the day. Stites’ girlfriend Jessie reported that Stites made
home repairs and mowed the lawn. Stites testified that he did not do any
yard work. Stites told Dr. Vrtikapa that he had heard voices, but denied
any command hallucinations. Stites testified that he both heard voices and
saw “ghost people,” and further that the voices told him daily to hurt
himself. Stites never reported to Dr. Vrtikapa any visual hallucinations or
any commands to hurt himself. Such inconsistencies provide ample
Page 33 of 35
support for the ALJ’s credibility determination. The Court will not review
that determination.
Finally, Stites argues that the ALJ erred by not asking Barchi about
inconsistencies between his opinions and Department of Labor’s Dictionary
of Occupational Titles (DOT). Barchi opined that a person of Stites’ age,
education, and RFC could perform jobs listed in the DOT even if he needed
to change from sitting to standing at will (sit/stand option). The DOT job
definitions, however, do not address sit/stand options. Stites argues that
the ALJ erred in not asking Barchi about this inconsistency. See SSR 004p.
The Court sees no error. The ALJ is only required to inquire sua
sponte into conflicts between the vocational expert’s testimony and the
DOT when the conflict is apparent. Overman v. Astrue, 546 F.3d 456, 46364 (7th Cir. 2008). The fact that the DOT does not discuss sit/stand options
does not demonstrate an apparent conflict with Barchi’s testimony about
the impact of a sit/stand option. See Zblewski v. Astrue, 302 Fed. Appx.
488, 494 (7th Cir. 2008) (“Because the DOT does not address the subject of
sit/stand options, it is not apparent that the testimony conflicts with the
DOT.”). Therefore, the ALJ was not required to inquire about any such
Page 34 of 35
conflicts unless Stites raised the issue at the hearing. Terry v. Astrue, 580
F.3d 471, 478 (7th Cir. 2009). He did not do so. There was no error.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Acting Commissioner of Social Security
Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e13) is ALLOWED and Stites’ Brief in
Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 10) is DENIED. The
decision of the Acting Commissioner is AFFIRMED. All pending motions
are denied as moot.
THIS CASE IS CLOSED.
ENTER: June 25, 2013
s/ Byron G. Cudmore
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 35 of 35
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?