Bradley v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
22
OPINION: Plaintiff Satina Jo Bradley's Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law in Support of Remand/Vacate of Decision Denying Disability 18 is DENIED and Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's Motion for Summary Affirmance 21 is GRANTED. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. CASE CLOSED. (SEE WRITTEN OPINION) Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 6/6/2016. (GL, ilcd)
E-FILED
Tuesday, 07 June, 2016 08:42:13 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
SATINA JO BRADLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 15-3150
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff Satina Jo Bradley appeals from the denial of her
application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits under
Title II of the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423. This
appeal is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Bradley has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and
Memorandum of Law in Support of Remand/Vacate of Decision
Denying Disability (d/e 18). Defendant Commissioner of Social
Security has filed a Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e 21). For
the reasons set forth below, the Decision of the Commissioner is
AFFIRMED.
Page 1 of 34
I. INTRODUCTION
On May 8, 2012, Bradley filed an application for disability
insurance benefits alleging a disability onset date of February 28,
2011. Bradley acquired sufficient quarters of coverage to remain
insured through December 31, 2016. See Certified Transcript of
Proceedings before the Social Security Administration (R.) (d/e 14),
ALJ Decision at 17. Bradley alleged disability due to bilateral
Meniere’s disease, dizziness, depression, anxiety, generalized
myalgia, weakness, pain, and fatigue.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) denied the
application initially on August 30, 2012 and again on
reconsideration on April 1, 2013. (R. 107, 115). Bradley appeared
with counsel at an administrative hearing on November 15, 2013,
and provided testimony. On January 10, 2014, the ALJ found
Bradley was at all relevant times capable for performing her past
work as a cashier and was therefore not disabled. R. 27.
Alternatively, the ALJ found that other jobs existed in the national
economy that Bradley could perform. R. 29.
The appeals council denied Bradley’s request for review on
March 9, 2015 , and Bradley now seeks judicial review of the ALJ’s
Page 2 of 34
decision, which stands as the final decision of the Commissioner.
R. 1-3.
II. BACKGROUND
The Court has reviewed the entire record but sets forth only a
summary of the evidence to put Bradley’s arguments in context. In
this appeal, Bradley primarily challenges the ALJ’s findings
regarding her Meniere’s Disease and the ALJ’s failure to give
controlling weight to the opinion of Bradley’s treating physician, Dr.
Daniel O’Brien.
Bradley was born on September 5, 1966 and was 47 years old
at the time of the ALJ’s decision. She is a high school graduate,
and completed one year of vocational college. R. 41. She previously
worked as a cashier, customer service representative, and an office
manager. Bradley’s last full-time work as a customer service
representative at Forsythe Insurance ended in February 2011 when
she was discharged because of a “bad attitude.” See R. 156, 200,
219, 235.
Bradley was diagnosed with Meniere’s Disease in July 2003
and received treatment at the Shea Ear Clinic in Memphis,
Tennessee until 2011. Bradley stopped going to the Shea Ear Clinic
Page 3 of 34
because she no longer had insurance and the benefits of the
procedures the Clinic performed only lasted a short while. R. 49.
Dr. O’Brien, a family practitioner, has treated Bradley since
1998. The medical records reflect that Bradley frequently saw Dr.
O’Brien for depression and anxiety, and he prescribed medication.
The records prior to and after February 2011 (the alleged date of
onset) show various levels of depression, stress, fatigue, and
anxiety. At times, the medical records reflect Bradley appeared
depressed and tearful. Dr. O’Brien’s treatment notes sometimes
contain Bradley’s reports of dizziness, ear pain, or ear fullness.
Dr. O’Brien completed two documents entitled “Meniere’s
Disease Residual Functional Capacity Questionnaire,” one dated
May 29, 2013 and one dated October 1, 2013. In the May 2013
Questionnaire, Dr. O’Brien noted that Bradley did not have
progressive hearing loss (noting that Bradley’s hearing had
improved), suffered vertigo, nausea/vomiting, and
fatigue/exhaustion, and that she had daily Meniere’s attacks of
brief duration. R. 477-78. Dr. O’Brien stated that neck extension
and bending over precipitated Bradley’s Meniere’s attacks and that
walking around made the attacks worse. R. 478-79. The postPage 4 of 34
attack manifestation was exhaustion. R. 479. Dr. O’Brien
expressed the opinion that during the times Bradley had an attack,
Bradley could not perform even basic work activities and would
need a break from the workplace. R. 480. She would also need to
take unscheduled breaks, although Dr. O’Brien did not indicate
how often or for how long. Id. Dr. O’Brien believed that Bradley
could tolerate moderate work stress and that her impairment was
likely to produce good and bad days.
In the October 2013 Questionnaire, Dr. O’Brien did not
indicate whether Bradley had hearing loss but wrote, “Slowly
progressive, initially [left] hearing loss, now bilateral.” R. 488. Dr.
O’Brien marked the following symptoms as being associated with
Bradley’s Meniere’s attacks: vertigo, nausea/vomiting,
photosensitivity, sensitivity to noise, mood changes, mental
confusion/inability to concentrate, and fatigue/exhaustion. R. 489.
He again identified her attacks as daily and of brief duration but
this time stated that the precipitating factors included “computer
monitor, rapid movements—bend, extend, standing, turning;
darkness (disoriented).” R. 489. Bright lights, noise, and moving
around made the attacks worse. R. 489. Dr. O’Brien identified
Page 5 of 34
lying in a dimly lit room, staring, and focusing on an object as
things that possibly improve symptoms. Dr. O’Brien marked the
following as post-attack manifestations: confusion, exhaustion,
irritability, severe headaches and he wrote in “weakness.” R. 490.
According to Dr. O’Brien, the manifestations last up to two days
and Bradley has to stay in bed because she is fatigued and offbalance. R. 490.
Although Dr. O’Brien did not identify in the May 2013
Questionnaire any side effects Bradley suffered due to her
medications, he identified in the October 2013 Questionnaire that
Bradley suffered from poor concentration, poor focus, “cloudy,”
fatigue, and sleepiness as side effects. R. 491. Dr. O’Brien again
indicated that, during an attack, Bradley would be precluded from
performing even basic work activities and would need a break from
the workplace. R. 491. She would also need to take unscheduled
breaks during an 8-hour work day. In the October 2013
Questionnaire, Dr. O’Brien indicated this would occur “2-3 days”
and that Bradley would need “2-3 days” to rest before returning to
work. Bradley would also need to lie down or sit quietly during
such a break. R. 491. Dr. O’Brien indicated that Bradley was
Page 6 of 34
incapable of even a low stress job because “stress intensifies
anxiety, depression, confusion.” R. 491. Bradley’s impairments
were likely to produce good and bad days. R. 491. Bradley would
be absent from work every 2 to 3 days and more than four days a
month. R. 491. Dr. O’Brien also wrote: “cannot drive after dark &
cannot drive long distances; infrequently drives to dr’s office, post
office if not bothering her that day.” R. 492.
Dr. O’Brien also submitted a Residual Functional Capacity
Form dated September 30, 2013. (R. 482). Dr. O’Brien stated that
Bradley suffered from Meniere’s disease, fatigue, confusion, severe
depression, anxiety, and fibromyalgia. R. 482. Bradley’s
impairments prevented her from standing or sitting upright for six
to eight hours. R. 483. Bradley could only stand for 15 to 30
minutes due to her fatigue, aches, and dizziness. Id. Bradley’s
disability or impairment also required her to lie down during the
day. R. 484. She could only walk two to three blocks. Id. Bradley
could rarely reach above her shoulders, reach down to waist level,
reach down toward the floor, carefully handle objects, or handle
with fingers. She could lift and carry less than five pounds
Page 7 of 34
regularly. R. 484. Bradley could not squat or kneel, or turn her
neck. R. 485.
Dr. O’Brien opined that, given Bradley’s impairments, Bradley
could not resume work because she had not worked for 2 1/2 years
and her symptoms and resultant disability have progressed. R.
485. Dr. O’Brien believed Bradley was permanently disabled. R.
485.
On August 15, 2012, Dolores Trello, Psy.D. performed a
mental status examination of Bradley at the request of the Social
Security disability adjudicator (R. 452). Dr. Trello concluded that,
on Axis I, Bradley had dysthymic disorder and generalized anxiety
disorder, had a Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) of 50.1 Dr.
Trello also concluded that Bradley had “serious impairment in
interpersonal and vocational functioning.” R. 456.
Dr. Michael S. Trieger, Psy.D., a consultative examiner,
conducted a psychological evaluation of Bradley in February 2013.
The Global Assessment of Functioning “is a numerical scale (1 through 100)
used by mental health clinicians and physicians to subjectively rate the social,
occupational, and psychological functioning of adults[.]”
https://www.mentalhelp.net/articles/global-assessment-of-functioning/ (last
visited June 6, 2016). A score between 41 and 50 is indicative of “[s]erious
symptoms (e.g., suicidal ideation, severe obsessional rituals, frequent
shoplifting) OR any serious impairment in social, occupational, or school
functioning (e.g., no friends, unable to keep a job).” Id.
1
Page 8 of 34
Dr. Trieger concluded that, on Axis 1, Bradley suffered from major
depressive disorder and panic disorder (by claimant report) and had
a global assessment functioning of 49. R. 476.
The Residual Functional Capacity Assessments prepared on
initial review and reconsideration provided that Bradley had
postural limitations due to her dizziness and could never climb
ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, and could only occasionally climb stairs
and ramps. See R. 82-83, 98-99. Bradley should also avoid even
moderate exposure to hazards due to dizziness. R. 83, 99.
The Mental Residual Functional Capacity Assessment
prepared on initial review concluded that Bradley had no significant
mental limitations in understanding and memory. R. 83-85.
Bradley had moderate limitations in the ability to carry out detailed
instructions and interact appropriately with the general public.
Bradly did not have significant mental limitations in adaptation.
Bradley was mentally capable of performing short and simple tasks
in a routine schedule with reasonable rest periods and limited
interaction with the general public. On reconsideration, the
psychological consultant also noted that Bradley should have work
assignments requiring no contact with the public and minimal
Page 9 of 34
contact with co-workers and supervisors. R. 102. The consultant
found no medical evidence of record that Bradley had significant
impairment in learning the way and traveling to a work site. R.
102.
III. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
A hearing was held on November 15, 2013. Bradley testified
that she took the following medication: alprazolam for anxiety;
levothyroxine for her thyroid; potassium CI for low potassium;
hydrochlorothiazide (water pill) for Meniere’s Disease; Prozac for
depression; prednisone for occasions when Meniere’s “gets really
out of hand;” amitriptyline for anxiety; and meclizine for dizziness
and nausea. R 43-44. Bradley did not believe that the
antidepressants were effective. R. 44. She testified that the anxiety
medication works. R. 45. Side effects from the medications include
fatigue, diarrhea, and upset stomach. R. 45.
Bradley drives 40 miles or less a week and only during the
day. R. 46; r. 54 (“I haven’t driven at night for probably five or six
years.”). She testified that she can take care of her own personal
hygiene needs with the exception of washing her hair because she
cannot tilt her head forward or backward. R. 46.
Page 10 of 34
She occasionally prepares meals at home but not on the stove.
It is difficult for her to lift wet clothes out of the washing machine
because her arms and body are weak. R. 47.
Bradley testified she has been seeing Dr. O’Brien since 1998
for major depression, fibromyalgia, low potassium, and anxiety. R.
48. When Bradley’s attorney asked if Dr. O’Brien treated her for
Meniere’s Disease, Bradley testified, “Along with him [Dr. O’Brien]
being able to prescribe the water pill for me, that would be the only
aspect.” R. 48. Bradley explained that she would normally go to
the Shea Ear Clinic in Tennessee where they specialize in Meniere’s
Disease. R. 48. However, she had not been to the Shea Ear Clinic
for three to four years because she no longer has health insurance
and the procedures the Clinic performed only lasted a short while.
R. 49. Bradley has, however, discussed with Dr. O’Brien how
Meniere’s affects her. R. 50.
Bradley testified that her Meniere’s is constant and that
“[e]very waking minute I feel like I am trying to keep things
balanced.” R. 51. Meniere’s Disease makes her nauseated and fall
down. She also has hearing loss. R. 51. She has “episodes” of
Meniere’s Disease daily but the episodes only last a few minutes. R.
Page 11 of 34
52. Then she has to lie down, sit down, or take meclizine “to try to
get back to an even place.” R. 52. She has to lie down for 10 to 15
minutes, unless she has a full-blown attack. R. 52. If she has a
full-blown attack, she goes to the emergency room, goes home, and
is in bed for a number of days. R. 52. In the last six months, she
went to the emergency room once for a fall she had in the house. R.
52,73.
When asked what she was doing in 2003 when she was
diagnosed that she cannot do now, Bradley testified “[p]retty much
everything. . . bending over; standing up; reaching” R. 52-53. She
cannot ride a bike or go swimming. She cannot hear her cell
phone. Her coordination is “horrendous.” She has a hard time
using her hands. R. 53. She has problems coming back up after
bending over. She does not wear shoelaces in her shoes because
she cannot bend over to tie them. R. 53-54.
Bradley testified she cannot sit upright for an extended length
of time because she gets tired. Lights flickering bother her. R. 54.
She seldom uses a computer because looking at anything
repetitious (like changing screens or a train moving on a train track)
Page 12 of 34
bothers her and she will eventually throw up. R. 55. She can walk
one or two blocks without taking a break. R. 56.
Bradley testified that she has problems moving her head from
left to right and up and down. She has not had a good day in years.
On a less severe day, she sometimes lies in bed and cries but other
times she will get up and try to do something around the house. R.
57. She testified that today was a bad day because she has high
anxiety, which intensifies the depression and does not help the
Meniere’s Disease at all. R. 57.
Bradley takes naps once or twice a day. If she is having a
severe day, she takes meclizine, which “knocks her out.” R. 58.
She has learned that there is no medicine for dizziness. The
medicine she takes puts her to sleep so she does not feel the
dizziness. R. 58.
The longest she can sit in an upright position before she has
to stand up is 30 minutes. R. 63. Bradley testified that sitting
during the hearing caused her hips to hurt, which she believed was
part of her fibromyalgia. R. 63. Dr. O’Brien diagnosed her with
fibromyalgia based on Bradley’s complaints and not being able to
figure out anything else that was causing the pain. R. 64. The only
Page 13 of 34
test he performed was a bone density test, which was normal. She
did not see a rheumatologist because she does not have health
insurance. R. 64. When the ALJ asked her if she was telling him
that she could afford to smoke but not go to the doctor, Bradley
testified that she was trying to quit smoking. R. 65. She paid $132
a month to see Dr. O’Brien and spends $150 to $200 a month on
prescriptions. R. 65. Bradley testified that she had been seeing
O’Brien monthly, explained all of her problems to Dr. O’Brien, and
that Dr. O’Brien’s treating source statement was based on his
observations of her. R. 65-66. Bradley confirmed that everything
Dr. O’Brien put on the forms was based on things she had told him
in previous visits about her condition. R. 67.
The ALJ posed several hypotheticals to the vocational expert,
Bob Hammond, to determine whether an individual of the same age,
education, and experience as Bradley could perform past relevant
work or other work in the national economy with various
limitations. R. 69-72.
IV. THE DECISION OF THE ALJ
On January 10, 2014, the ALJ issued his decision. R. 17-29.
The ALJ followed the five-step analysis set forth in Social Security
Page 14 of 34
Administration Regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Step 1 requires
that the claimant not be currently engaged in substantial gainful
activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). If true, Step 2 requires the
claimant to have a severe impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). If
true, Step 3 requires a determination of whether the claimant is so
severely impaired that she is disabled regardless of her age,
education and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). To meet
this requirement at Step 3, the claimant's condition must meet or
be equal to the criteria of one of the impairments specified in 20
C.F.R. Part 404 Subpart P, Appendix 1 (Listing). 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520(d). If the claimant is not so severely impaired, the ALJ
proceeds to Step 4 of the Analysis.
Step 4 requires the claimant not to be able to return to her
prior work considering her age, education, work experience, and
Residual Functional Capacity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) and (f). If
the claimant cannot return to her prior work, then Step 5 requires a
determination of whether the claimant is disabled considering her
RFC, age, education, and past work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520(g), 404.1560(c). The claimant has the burden of
presenting evidence and proving the issues on the first four steps.
Page 15 of 34
The Commissioner has the burden on the last step; the
Commissioner must show that, considering the listed factors, the
claimant can perform some type of gainful employment that exists
in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512; Weatherbee v.
Astrue, 649 F.3d 565, 569 (7th Cir. 2011).
The ALJ found that Bradley met her burden at Steps 1 and 2.
Bradley had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since
February 28, 2011 and she had the severe impairments of Meniere’s
disease and depression. R. 19. The ALJ concluded that while
Bradley alleged fibromyalgia, there was no definitive diagnosis
within the medical evidence of record made by a specialist.. R. 20.
The ALJ also found that Bradley received treatment for anxiety but
that Bradley testified that her anxiety was stable and that was
documented in the medical evidence of record. R. 20.
At Step 3, the ALJ found that none of Bradley’s impairments
or combination of impairments met or medically equaled the
severity of a Listing. R. 20.
Between Steps 3 and 4, the ALJ found that Bradley had the
following RFC:
Page 16 of 34
After careful consideration of the entire record, the
undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual
functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20
CFR 404.1567(b) except occasional climbing of ramps,
ladders, and stairs; no climbing ropes or scaffolds;
because of all the claimant’s mental impairments and
symptoms combined, the claimant may during times of
symptoms [and] exacerbations have moderate limitations
in concentration, persistence, and/or pace when
attempting complex or detailed tasks, so the claimant is
limited to jobs without complex or detailed job processes
that can be learned in 120 days or fewer.
R. 22. In explaining the RFC finding, the ALJ summarized the
Function Reports, testimony, and the third-party Function Report
completed by Bradley’s boyfriend, David Kemp. R. 22-24. The ALJ
then found that Bradley’s testimony about the “intensity,
persistence and limiting effects” of her symptoms not credible. R.
24.
In finding Bradley not entirely credible, the ALJ noted that
there was evidence that the claimant had stopped working for
reasons not necessarily related to the allegedly disabling
impairments, namely for having a “bad attitude.” R. 24. With
regard to the Meniere’s Disease, the ALJ concluded that the
evidence of record did not support a finding that Bradley’s
symptoms occurred with such severity and frequency as to prevent
Page 17 of 34
Bradley from engaging in substantial gainful work activity. The ALJ
found that Bradley’s allegedly disabling impairment was present at
approximately the same level of severity prior to the alleged onset
date. R. 24. The fact that the physical impairment did not prevent
Bradley from working prior to the onset date “strongly suggest that
it would not currently prevent work.” R. 24. The ALJ also found it
less than credible that Bradley allegedly experiences sudden,
frequent bouts of dizziness and loss of balance but is still willing to
drive, although she admittedly did not drive long distances. R. 24.
The ALJ concluded that, taken as a whole, the medical evidence did
not suggest that Bradley experienced disabling functional
limitations because of her Meniere’s Disease. R. 24.
Similarly, the ALJ found that the total evidence of record did
not demonstrate that Bradley’s depression was so severe that it
causes mental functional limitations that prevent Bradley from
engaging in all substantial gainful activity. The ALJ cited the
August 2012 mental status examination and the February 2013
consultative psychological evaluation. The ALJ also noted that
while Bradley frequently claimed to be depressed throughout the
period under consideration, the objective evidence did not
Page 18 of 34
demonstrate that her depression caused disabling limitations in
mental functioning. R. 25.
The ALJ also noted that Bradley had a long and established
history of treatment for depression. The ALJ found: “Yet [Bradley]
never sought or received treatment from a specialist for her
depression during the entire period under consideration . . . as one
might expect of a person with an allegedly disabling mental
impairment.” R. 25. Moreover, the ALJ stated that all of Bradley’s
treatment has been rendered by a general practitioner. As of
November 2013, Bradley still had not sought counseling with the
Springfield Mental Health Center as recommended to her by a nurse
practitioner. The ALJ found this called into question the severity of
Bradley’s alleged depression. R. 25.
The ALJ also considered the opinion evidence. The ALJ noted
that the residual functional capacity conclusions reached by the
physicians employed by the State Disability Determination Service
supported a finding of not disabled. R. 25 1A, 3A. The ALJ noted
that the physicians were non-examining and did not deserve as
much weight as those of examining or treating physicians but found
Page 19 of 34
the opinions did deserve some weight where there existed a number
of other reasons to reach similar conclusions. R. 25
The ALJ also considered the two Meniere’s Disease Residual
Functional Capacity Questionnaires completed by Dr. O’Brien. R.
25-26. The ALJ noted that the medical opinion of a treating
physician is entitled to controlling weight so long as it is wellsupported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory
techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in
the record. The ALJ found that Dr. O’Brien’s opinion was not
entitled to controlling weight for several reasons.
The ALJ concluded that, as a primary care physician, Dr.
O’Brien’s opinion appeared to rest in part on assessment of an
impairment outside O’Brien’s area of expertise. Moreover, Dr.
O’Brien’s opinion appeared to rely in part on assessment of an
impairment for which Bradley received no treatment from Dr.
O’Brien. Bradley testified she did not receive treatment from Dr.
O’Brien for Meniere’s Disease other than a prescription for her
water pill. R. 26.
In addition, the ALJ found that O’Brien relied heavily on the
subjective report of symptoms or limitations provided by Bradley
Page 20 of 34
and seemed to uncritically accept as true most, if not all, of what
Bradley reported. R. 26. Dr. O’Brien’s treatment notes documented
Bradley’s subjective complaints about her symptoms but “very little
objective or clinical findings are recorded.” R. 26
The ALJ further found that Dr. O’Brien’s opinion is without
substantial support from other evidence in the record, which
renders it less persuasive. R. 26. By way of example, the ALJ
recognized the assertion of hearing problems by Bradley, Bradley’s
boyfriend, and Dr. O’Brien but noted a November 2013 examination
recorded that Bradley was negative for hearing problems. R. 26. In
addition, Dr. O’Brien’s October 2013 Questionnaire found Bradley
incapable of even “low stress” jobs despite finding, in the May 2013
Questionnaire, that Bradley was capable for high stress work—yet
the treatment records do not document extreme changes in
Bradley’s mental function between those two months. 2 R. 26.
The record contains a February 4, 2014 letter from Dr. O’Brien indicating that
this discrepancy was made in error. See R. 704 (“I would like to address the
issue of my patient’s ability to work as there is a discrepancy on the Meniere’s
disease Residual Functional Capacity Questionnaire dated 5/29/13. I
erroneously indicated on this questionnaire that Ms. Bradley was ‘capable of
high stress work’. This is not correct. As you can tell from the questionnaire,
this is contradictory with the other information provided. On the updated
Meniere’s disease Residual Functional Capacity Questionnaire dated 10/1/13,
2
Page 21 of 34
Additionally, Dr. O’Brien’s October 2013 questionnaire found that
Bradley had post-attack manifestations that lasted for up to two
days and that she would need an unscheduled break every 2 to 3
days that would last 2 to 3 days but did not find those extreme
limitations existed when he completed his May 2013 Questionnaire.
R. 26-27. The ALJ noted that Dr. O’Brien’s treatment notes did not
document that Bradley experienced an increase in the frequency or
severity of attacks from her Meniere’s Disease to support the
addition of such extreme limitations. R. 27. For all of those
reasons, the ALJ found Dr. O’Brien’s opinions were not persuasive
and the ALJ gave Dr. O’Brien’s opinions little weight. The ALJ gave
significant weight to the findings of Dr. Trieger and Dr. Trello. The
ALJ found that Bradley’s adaptive functioning3 did not suggest she
was disabled.
The ALJ concluded that, based on the medical evidence of
record, Bradley’s testimony, and the record as a whole, Bradley has
retained the capacity to perform light work with minor
I indicated that my patient is ‘incapable of even low stress work’, which is the
correct response.”).
A deficit in adaptive functioning denotes an “inability to cope with the
challenges of everyday life.” Novy v. Astrue, 497 F.3d 708, 709 (7th Cir. 2007).
3
Page 22 of 34
nonexertional limitations throughout the period under
consideration.
At Step 4, the ALJ found that Bradley was capable of
performing past relevant work as a cashier and telephone solicitor.
The ALJ relied on the vocational expert’s testimony. It is not clear
that being a cashier is consistent with the state agency consultant’s
conclusion that Bradley should not work with the public. However,
Bradley does not raise this argument, and the ALJ made an
alternative finding that Bradley could perform other jobs in the
national economy that do not appear to involve contact with the
public.
Specifically, at Step 5, the ALJ also found that Bradley could
perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy,
namely eyewear assembler, semiconductor bonder, and circuit
board screener. The ALJ relied on the testimony of the vocational
expert and determined that the vocational expert’s testimony was
consistent with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. The ALJ
concluded that Bradley was not disabled.
Page 23 of 34
V. LEGAL STANDARD
This Court reviews the Decision of the Commissioner to
determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence.
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); Elder v. Astrue,
529 F.3d 408, 413 (7th Cir. 2008). 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, 529 F.3d at 413-14. The ALJ must
articulate at least minimally his analysis of all relevant evidence.
Herron v. Shalala, 19 F.3d 329, 333 (7th Cir. 1994). In addition,
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).
VI. ANALYSIS
On appeal, Bradley presents several challenges to the SSA’s
decision to deny her application for disability benefits. Bradley
Page 24 of 34
argues that the ALJ “committed reversible error by not adequately
considering or addressing medical listing 2.07 in light of the clearly
diagnosed Meniere’s diagnosis.” Pl. Mot. at 6 (d/e 18). Bradley
asserts that the ALJ “was clearly making a medical decision” with
regard to the Meniere’s Disease diagnosis. Bradley asks that the
case be remanded with instructions that a consultative medical
doctor be called as a witness.
Under Step 3, a claimant must satisfy all of the criteria in the
Listing to receive an award of disability insurance benefits. Rice v.
Barnhart, 384 F.3d 363, 369 (7th Cir. 2004). The claimant bears
the burden of proving her condition meets or equals each criterion
of a listed impairment. Ribaudo v. Barnhart, 458 F.3d 580, 583
(7th Cir. 2006). “In considering whether a claimant’s condition
meets or equals a listed impairment, an ALJ must discuss the
listing by name and offer more than perfunctory analysis of the
listing.” Barnett v. Barnhart, 381 F.3d 664, 668 (7th Cir. 2004).
In this case, to satisfy Listing 2.07, Bradley had to prove that
her condition met the following criteria:
Disturbance of labyrinthine-vestibular function
(including Meniere's disease), characterized by a history
Page 25 of 34
of frequent attacks of balance disturbance, tinnitus, and
progressive loss of hearing. With both A and B:
A. Disturbed function of vestibular labyrinth
demonstrated by caloric or other vestibular tests; and
B. Hearing loss established by audiometry.
20 C.F.R. Pt. § 404, Subpt. P App. 1, Listing 2.07. The ALJ found:
The claimant’s Meniere’s Disease does not cause the
claimant to [meet] or equal Listing 2.07, disturbance of
labyrinthine-vestibular function (including Meniere’s
Disease), because it is not characterized by frequent
attacks of balance disturbance, tinnitus, and progressive
hearing loss with both a disturbed function of vestibular
labyrinth demonstrated by caloric or other vestibular
tests; and hearing loss established by audiometry.
While brief, the Court finds that the ALJ discussed the listing
by name and offered more than a perfunctory analysis of the listing.
Moreover, Bradley does not point to any records to show how her
impairment met the criteria under Listing 2.07. In addition, while
the Shea Ear Clinic records from 2005 reflect that Bradley had
hearing loss in her left ear, ( See R. 388), a November 2010 medical
record from the Shea Ear Clinic reflects that Bradley’s hearing was
good (R. 347). In addition, a November 7, 2013 medical record form
completed by a nurse practitioner at Physicians Group Associates
Page 26 of 34
(Dr. O’Brien’s office) indicated that Bradley was “negative for
hearing problems.” R. 644.
Bradley also argues that the ALJ should have consulted a
medical expert to determine whether Bradley’s impairment met or
equaled a listing. In support thereof, Bradley cites Barnett v.
Barnhart, 381 F.3d 664, which found that the ALJ erred, in part, by
failing to consult a medical expert regarding whether Listing 11.03
was equaled.
“Whether a claimant’s impairment equals a listing is a medical
judgment, and an ALJ must consider an expert’s opinion on the
issue.” Barnett, 381 F.3d at 670. However, the signature of a State
agency medical or psychological consultant on a Disability
Determination and Transmittal Form (SSA-831-U5) or other
documents on which medical and psychological consultants record
their findings can satisfy the requirement to receive expert opinion
evidence into the record. See SSR 96-6p.
In Barnett, the Seventh Circuit noted that the record did not
contain an SSA-831-U5 or other form that would “satisfy the ALJ’s
duty to consider an expert’s opinion on medical equivalence.”
Barnett, 381 F.3d at 671. In contrast here, the record contains two
Page 27 of 34
Disability Determination and Transmittal Forms (R. 89, R. 105).
Although the forms in this case are form SSA-831-C3 and not form
SSA 831-U5, the two forms appear to be the same and, in any
event, the SSA-831-C3 form is an “other document” contemplated
by SSR 96-6p as sufficient to constitute expert evidence in the
record. See Dailey v. Colvin, No. 1:14-CV-00294-SEB, 2015 WL
331859, at *2 n. 2 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 21, 2015) (finding that SSA-831C3 forms were the same as SSA-831-U5 forms and, even if not the
same, “the ALJ still not err in relying on the state agency reviewers
disability determination and transmittal forms as they are other
documents that consider the question of medical equivalence”). The
record also demonstrates that the ALJ relied on the State agency
reviewers’ opinions in which they opined that Bradley’s Meniere’s
Disease did not meet Listing 2.07. See ALJ Decision at 25, citing
Exhibit 1A, 3A (see R. 81, 97). Consequently, the ALJ had medical
evidence in the record from which to make his determination that
Bradley’s condition met or equaled Listing 2.07.
Bradley also argues that the ALJ should have given controlling
weight to Dr. O’Brien’s opinion regarding Bradley’s “functionality”
because Dr. O’Brien was her treating physician. Pl.’s Mot. at 6. A
Page 28 of 34
treating physician’s medical opinion is entitled to controlling weight
when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and
diagnostic techniques and is reasonably consistent with the other
substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); SSR
96-2p. When controlling weight is not given to the treating
physician’s opinion, the ALJ must determine the weight to give the
opinion by looking at several factors, including the length of the
treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the nature
and extent of the treatment relationship, the support for the
opinion, the consistency of the opinion, and whether the treating
physician’s opinion is about a medical issue related to his area of
specialty. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)(i), (ii), 404.1527(c)(3)-(c)(6).
“If the ALJ discounts the physician’s opinion after considering these
factors, [the court] must allow that decision to stand so long as the
ALJ minimally articulated his reasons[.]” Elder, 529 F. 3d at 415
(internal quotations and citations omitted).
Bradley argues that the ALJ improperly gave little weight to
Dr. O’Brien’s opinion on the ground that Dr. O’Brien did not treat
Bradley for Meniere’s Disease. Pl.’s Mot. at 6. Bradley points out
that Dr. O’Brien prescribed Bradley pills for water reduction. Id. at
Page 29 of 34
6-7. However, the ALJ recognized that Dr. O’Brien prescribed a
water pill but concluded that Dr. O’Brien provided no other
treatment for Bradley’s Meniere’s disease, which justified giving
little weight to Dr. O’Brien’s opinion. The ALJ’s conclusion is
supported by the record and provided a basis for discounting Dr.
O’Brien’s opinion. See Elder, 529 F.3d at 416 (finding that the
record supported the ALJ’s decision refusing to afford the treating
physician’s opinion controlling weight where the physician was not
a specialist in fibromyalgia and failed to conduct a thorough
examination of the claimant to determine the severity of her
conditions).
Moreover, the ALJ offered additional reasons for giving little
weight to Dr. O’Brien’s opinions, and Bradley does not argue that
those reasons are unsound. The ALJ explained that he discounted
Dr. O’Brien’s opinion because the opinion rested, in part, on an
assessment of an impairment outside Dr. O’Brien’s area of expertise
(Meniere’s Disease). This reason is supported by the record, as the
record shows that Dr. O’Brien is a general practitioner and not a
specialist in otology or neurotology. See Elder, 529 F.3d at 416
(finding that the record supported the ALJ’s decision refusing to
Page 30 of 34
afford the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight where the
physician was not a specialist in fibromyalgia).
The ALJ also discounted Dr. O’Brien’s opinion because Dr.
O’Brien relied heavily on Bradley’s subjective report of symptoms.
The ALJ noted that the treatment records contained very little
objective or clinic findings. This reason is supported by the record.
See Rice v. Barnhart, 384 F.3d 363, 371 (7th Cir. 2004) (noting that
where the physician’s clinical findings were negative, his opinions
regarding the claimant’s limitations were presumably based on the
claimant’s subjective complaints, and “medical opinions upon
which an ALJ should rely need to be based on objective
observations and not amount merely to a recitation of a claimant’s
subjective complaints”).
The ALJ further discounted Dr. O’Brien’s opinion because the
opinion was without substantial support from other evidence in the
record. The ALJ noted that Bradley reported hearing loss, but that
a November 2013 examination recorded that Bradley was “negative
for hearing problems.” R. 26. The record supports this finding.
See R. 347 (November 2010 medical record reflecting that Bradley’s
Page 31 of 34
hearing was good); R. 644 (November 2013 medical record
indicating that Bradley was “negative for hearing problems”).
Finally, the ALJ gave little weight to Dr. O’Brien’s opinion
because of the inconsistency between Dr. O’Brien’s May 2013
Questionnaire and October 2013 Questionnaire without any
corresponding treatment notes showing an increase in the
frequency or severity of attacks from Meniere’s Disease. This
conclusion is supported in the record. See Denton v. Astrue, 596
F.3d 419, 424 (7th Cir. 2010) (“Even though a claimant’s condition
may worsen, a medical expert is obligated to point to objective
medical evidence to explain the worsening prognosis”).
In sum, the ALJ’s decision to not give controlling weight to Dr.
O’Brien’s opinion was reasonable and the ALJ sufficiently
articulated the reasons for his decision. See Schmidt v. Astrue, 496
F.3d 833, 842-43 (7th Cir. 2007) (finding the ALJ provided an
adequate explanation for his decision to not give controlling weight
to the treating physician’s medical opinion where the physician’s
diagnosis was not supported by medical evidence, statements in the
treatment notes were inconsistent with the physician’s conclusion
that the claimant could not perform sedentary work, and the
Page 32 of 34
questionnaire submitted by the physician appeared to have been
drafted by the attorney and did not include new medical evidence or
another basis to justify the more extreme limitations).
Bradley next argues the ALJ committed error by not giving any
weight to the Meniere’s journal submitted by Bradley. The journal
consists of occasional entries by Bradley between September 2012
and November 2013 describing her symptoms on certain days. See
R. 262-291. The information in the journal is similar to that
contained in the Function Reports submitted by Bradley and
Bradley’s testimony, both of which the ALJ specifically considered.
An ALJ does not have to mention every piece of evidence,
although he must provide a logical bridge between the evidence and
his conclusions. Terry v. Astrue, 580 F.3d 471, 477 (7th Cir. 2009)
(but also noting that the ALJ cannot ignore an entire line of
evidence that is contrary to the ALJ’s ruling). This is particularly
true where the evidence is merely cumulative of evidence on which
the ALJ relied. Jones v. Bowen, 699 F. Supp. 693, 696 n.4 (N.D. Ill.
1988). Here, the journal was merely cumulative of Bradley’s
Function Reports and testimony. Therefore, the ALJ did not err by
failing to specifically mention the journal.
Page 33 of 34
Finally, Bradley argues that the Social Security Administration
must consider a claimant’s medical conditions in combination. Pl.’s
Mot. at 7. That is the extent of Bradley’s argument. Therefore, the
Court finds this argument forfeited. However, even assuming
Bradley did not forfeit the argument, the record shows that the ALJ
did consider the Bradley’s medical conditions in combination. See
R. 20 (considering Bradley’s mental impairments singly and in
combination); R. 27 (considering the combined symptoms and
effects of Meniere’s Disease, depression, fibromyalgia, and anxiety).
VII. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, Plaintiff Satina Jo Bradley’s Motion for
Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law in Support of
Remand/Vacate of Decision Denying Disability (d/e 18) is DENIED
and Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s Motion for
Summary Affirmance (d/e 21) is GRANTED. The decision of the
Commissioner is AFFIRMED. CASE CLOSED.
ENTER:
June 6, 2016
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 34 of 34
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?