Bentley v. Commissioner of Social Security et al
Filing
19
OPINION AND ORDER remanding case to US Agency for further proceedings, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Chief Judge Philip P Simon on 9/28/15. (mlc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
DONNA R. BENTLEY,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, COMM’R OF )
SOC. SEC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
CAUSE NO. 3:14CV1589
OPINION AND ORDER
An administrative law judge denied Donna Bentley’s application for Social
Security disability insurance benefits. Bentley claims that the ALJ erred by not affording
controlling weight to her treating physician, failing to account for the impact of her
headaches on her ability to work, and finding her less than fully credible. I will remand
on the first two issues.
BACKGROUND
Readers looking for a more extensive discussion of Bentley’s medical record are
directed to the detailed summaries in the ALJ’s decision (R. 10-30) and in Bentley’s
opening brief (DE 12). Rather than simply reiterating those summaries, I will give a
brief overview of the history of Bentley’s disability claim.
Although Bentley suffers from a handful of severe impairments, the ones
relevant to this discussion are her back and neck problems and her headaches.
1
Bentley’s troubles started when she was in a car accident in June of 2010. Over the
course of the next nine months, Bentley saw her family physician, a chiropractor, a pain
management specialist, a physical therapist, and a orthopedic surgeon to treat her
ongoing back and neck pain. (See generally DE 12 at 2-5.) Throughout this time, her
treatments included various pain medications, physical therapy, chiropractic
adjustments, and epidural injections. (Id.) When these treatments failed to resolve her
issues, she was referred to a neurosurgeon. (DE 12 at 5.)
Bentley first met with the neurosurgeon, Dr. Jamie Gottlieb, M.D., in March 2011,
complaining of severe headaches, severe neck pain that radiated into her hands and low
back pain, none of which had been adequately helped with more conservative
treatments. (R. 754-55.) Dr. Gottlieb’s examination revealed various positive tests
consistent with these reports, such as a positive “spurling’s maneuver,”1 which
indicated that her pain was radiating into her hands, and a positive straight leg raising
in both legs.2 (Id.) Her lumbar spine and sciatic notch were also tender to the touch.
(Id.) Dr. Gottlieb also reviewed some of Bentley’s previous MRIs from August 2010 and
found a bulging disc and a mild-to-moderate narrowing of the nerve pathway in her
cervical and lumbar spine. (Id.) Because she had failed more conservative treatment, he
recommended surgery on her neck, but also recommended holding off on surgery on
Spurling’s maneuver is a test used to determine where pain radiates. Spurling’s Test,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spurling%27s_test (last visited Sept. 22, 2015).
1
The straight leg test is used to detect disc herniation in the lumbar spine. Straight Leg
Raise, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_leg_raise (last visited Sept. 22, 2015).
2
2
her lumbar spine in case the neck surgery helped resolve that issue, as well. (Id.)
Bentley said she would think about whether to proceed with the surgery. (Id.)
The next month, Bentley’s symptoms had gotten worse. (R. 753.) Dr. Gottlieb
was concerned that the worsened symptoms indicated “greater pathology,” so he
ordered a new MRI on Bentley’s neck and found various physical problems in Bentley’s
cervical spine. (Id.) He continued to recommend surgery. (Id.)
The new MRI showed a bone spur at disc level C4-5 with mild effacement of the
thecal sac and mild narrowing of the left C4-5 foramen. (R. 511.) Dr. Gottlieb also
noted bulging at the C5-6 disc with mild effacement of the thecal sac and mild neural
foraminal stenosis. (Id.) At that same level, he also noted a small central disc
protrusion, but found it was not compressing the spinal cord or nerve roots. (Id.)
Essentially, what all this boils down to is that Bentley had some bulges and protrusions
where they shouldn’t be in her spinal column, and those bulges and protrusions made
the inside of her spinal column narrower than it should be. See Diffuse Cervical Bulge,
http://www.americanspinal.com/ diffuse -cervical-bulge.html (last visited September
21, 2015); Bone Spurs, http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/bone-spurs/
basics/ definition/con-20024478 (last visited September 21, 2015). In some patients,
those conditions cause pain, whereas some patients have no symptoms. Id. Bentley
also exhibited kyphosis in the C4-C7 range, which means her neck was hunched over in
this area. Kyphosis, http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/kyphosis/
basics/ definition/con-20026732 (last visited Sept. 22, 2015). Dr. Gottlieb further found
3
that “[s]he has failed to respond to all conservative measures including medications,
injections, and therapy.” (R. 752.) He again recommended surgery. (Id.)
Based on the above findings and Bentley’s lack of response to all conservative
treatments, Dr. Gottlieb performed a surgery on Bentley’s neck whereby he fused her
vertebrae together at levels C4 through C7. (R. 559-560, 752.) The surgery went well.
(Id.) Her neck improved, although she still had some pain. (R.748-50.) Dr. Gottlieb had
Bentley use a bone stimulator to improve the pain at the site of her fusion. (R. 747.)
But Bentley’s low back was still giving her trouble. In August 2011, she reported
increased lower back pain. (R. 748.) The next month, Bentley underwent a medial
branch block due to a failed lumbar epidural steroid injection. (R. 528, DE 12 at 7.)
After this procedure failed to give Bentley relief from her pain, her pain specialist
performed a radiofrequency ablation on her medial branch nerves in the lumbar area in
November 2011. (R. 512-13.) This procedure, also known as radiofrequency rhizotomy,
involves heating up the nerves and/or burning the nerves so that they no longer cause
pain. See Radiofreqency Ablation for Arthritis Pain, http://www.webmd.com/
pain-management/radiofrequency-ablation (last visited September 21, 2015);
Radiofrequency Ablation, https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Radiofrequency_ablation
(last visited September 21, 2015); Radiofrequency Rhisotomy, http://www.mycdi.com
/knowledge_center/pain_management/radiofrequency_rf_rhizotomy_for_pain_relief/
(last visited September 21, 2015).
4
This procedure provided Bentley some improvement. Although she still
reported lumbar and neck pain, her pain had stopped radiating. (R. 793.) In November
2011, at a follow up visit with Dr. Gottlieb, he found that “[o]verall, the back seems
better,”although “[s]he still has pain” in her lumbar spine and “some neck pain and
headaches.” (Id.) He said that she could “try to return to work and see how she
tolerates it.” (Id.)
The following month Dr. Gottlieb authored a medical opinion letter stating that
Bentley was six months post-surgery and was still having low back pain, neck pain, and
headaches. (R. 743.) He restricted her to lifting no more than 10 lbs and no bending or
twisting, and found that she needs to change positions frequently. (Id.) He also noted
that she would need to lie down intermittently for periods of 30-45 minutes, due to
pain. (Id.) He concluded that she was “incapable of even sedentary type work.” (Id.)
Either Bentley or someone at the physician’s office filled out a pain diagram around that
time indicating she had an aching sensation in her head, neck, and low back, and also
indicating her low back and neck pain were at a level about midway between no pain
and the worst possible pain. (R. 791-92) That portion of the questionnaire did not ask
her to rate her head pain. On the questionnaire, Bentley noted her pain was the same as
her last visit. (R. 792.)
This same month, Bentley was examined by a nurse practitioner and physical
therapist. (R. 735-39.) Bentley exhibited a very limited range of motion in her neck in
all directions, inability to bend more than 30 degrees forward, weakness in her upper
5
extremities, an unsatisfactory back extension, marginal back flexion and hip motions.
(R.736, 739.) The test could not be completed due to Bentley’s pain. (R. 739.) The nurse
practitioner found that Bentley was “not medically acceptable for stated position.” (R.
735.)
At her next follow-up appointment with Dr. Gottlieb in February 2012, Dr.
Gottlieb found that although things had “improved somewhat since the start of
treatment,” Bentley still had “significant headaches and neck pain as well as low back
pain and some numbness and tingling in her hands.” (R. 789.) He also stated that “she
will not ever be able to go back to the factory-type work she as doing before” and that
he would check back with her later in the year. (Id.) Here again, Bentley (or the staff)
filled out a pain chart indicating the same level of pain in the same areas as the visit two
months previously. (R. 787-88.)
Around this same time, Dr. Dorwyn Collier, D.O. examined Bentley at the
request of the Disability Determination Bureau. (R. 834-841.) Bentley reported neck
and lower back pain and migraines. (R. 840.) The findings were mostly normal other
than some reduction in movement of the cervical spine and shoulders, and a decreased
range of motion in her neck. (R. 840-41.) Significantly, Dr. Collier also found that
Bentley could not drive due to her decreased range of motion in her neck. (Id.)
Also that month (February 2012), Dr. Brill, a non-examining physician evaluated
Bentley’s records at the request of the Disability Determination Bureau. (R. 860-868.)
At first, Dr. Brill found that Bentley had no severe impairments (R. 860), but Dr. Brill
6
then (confusingly) submitted a second opinion finding that she did have a back disorder
(R. 861, R. 23), but could perform essentially light work (R. 862-868, 871). State agency
physician William Shipley, Ph.D. affirmed the first opinion (presumably affirming only
the mental health RFC) and state agency physician Dr. Corcoran, M.D. affirmed the
second (corrected) opinion. (R. 869-70.)
In June 2012, Bentley began seeing a pain specialist named Dr. Ajit Pai, M.D. In
July, she reported that her pain was a 7/10, which corresponded to a rating of “severe
(disabling, unable to perform [Activities of Daily Living]).” (R. 889.) At her next follow
up appointment with Dr. Gottlieb in July 2012, Bentley’s neck and arm were doing
better, but she was still having “a lot of pain in the low back with aching and burning.”
(R. 876.) Dr. Gottlieb noted that she had rhizotomies at L3 through S1, but that the relief
she experienced was short-lived. (Id.) He recommended a medial branch block with
Dr. Pai (her pain specialist) and continued maintenance with her pain medications. (Id.)
Bentley had the branch block, but she had a bad reaction to it. (R. 875.) She also
reported to Dr. Pai that it gave her only a couple of days of relief. (R. 882.) Bentley
reported moderate pain that was frequent; aggravated by walking, standing, or
movement; and alleviated by rest, lying down, and pain medication. (Id.) Dr. Pai
observed at this time that she had an antalgic gait – meaning she was walking in a
certain way as to avoid pain. (R. 883; Antalgic Gait, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Antalgic_gait (last visited Sept. 22, 2015).) She had some moderate tenderness in her
lumbar area, but her straight leg test was negative. (Id.) At this point, she reported her
7
pain as 6/10, which corresponded to a rating of “moderate (significant interference with
ADL).” (R. 883.)
At her follow-up with Dr. Gottlieb that same month, Bentley reported that her
neck was doing better, although she still had headaches and some numbness. (R. 875.)
Her lower back, however, was still a problem. (Id.) Dr. Gottlieb recommended a course
of 4-8 injections and possible rhizotomies, and physical therapy for 8-10 weeks. If she
did not improve, then he would suggest dorsal column stimulation or an open surgical
decompression and fusion for her lumbar spine. (Id.) He said he would see her again at
the end of the year. (Id.)
In October 2012, Bentley saw Dr. Pai again and reported that her pain was at a
level of 8/10, or “severe (disabling, unable to perform ADL [activities of daily living]).”
(R. 880.) She was having difficulty walking. (R. 879.) Her gait was still antalgic, her
straight leg raising test was negative, and she had mild tenderness in the lumbar spine
on both sides. (R. 880.) That is where her treatment records appear to end.
Bentley protectively applied for disability insurance benefits in December 2011,
alleging a disability onset date of May 31, 2011. The ALJ conducted a hearing on March
27, 2013. (R. 13.) In the opinion denying benefits, the ALJ found that Bentley had a
multitude of severe impairments but that she nonetheless retained a residual functional
capacity that allowed her to do a number of jobs in the national economy. (See generally
R. 13-25.)
8
DISCUSSION
If an ALJ’s findings are supported by “substantial evidence,” then they must be
sustained. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence consists of “such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
Nelms v. Astrue, 553 F.3d 1093, 1097 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402
U.S. 389, 401 (1971)). Review of the ALJ’s findings is deferential. Overman v. Astrue, 546
F.3d 456, 462 (7th Cir. 2008). “Although this standard is generous, it is not entirely
uncritical and the case must be remanded if the decision lacks evidentiary support.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted). In making a substantial evidence determination, I
must review the record as a whole, but I can’t re-weigh the evidence or substitute my
judgment for that of the ALJ. Id.
Bentley objects to the ALJ’s decision on three grounds: 1) the ALJ failed to give
controlling weight to Dr. Jamie Gottleib, M.D., Bentley’s treating physician who also
performed her neck surgery; 2) the ALJ failed to take into account the impact Bentley’s
headaches have on her ability to work; and 3) the ALJ erred in finding Bentley less than
fully credible. Although I have concerns about the ALJ’s handling in each of these areas,
my biggest concern is the fact that the ALJ’s decision to discount Bentley’s treating
physician’s opinion was not supported by substantial evidence. That’s enough to
remand. But I’ll also consider the “headaches” issue because the ALJ made significant
errors there, as well.
9
A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is “wellsupported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is
not inconsistent with other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. §
404.1527(d)(2); see White v. Barnhart, 415 F.3d 654, 658 (7th Cir. 2005). Once wellsupported contradicting evidence is introduced, however, the treating physician’s
opinion is no longer entitled to controlling weight and becomes “just one more piece of
evidence for the [ALJ] to weigh.” Bauer v. Astrue, 532 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2008). This
rule takes into account the treating physician’s advantage in “having personally
examined the claimant and developed a rapport, while controlling for the biases that a
treating physician may develop such as friendship with the patient.” Oakes v. Astrue,
258 Fed.Appx 38, 43-44 (7th Cir. 2001) (internal citation omitted); Dixon v. Massanari, 270
F.3d 1171, 1177 (7th Cir. 2001). If an ALJ decides not to give controlling weight to a
treating physician’s opinion, however, he must explain his reasons for doing so. Scott
v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 740 (7th Cir. 2011). Failure to do so is cause for remand. Id. And
that’s where the ALJ’s opinion here gets into trouble.
There is no dispute that Dr. Gottlieb is Bentley’s treating physician. (DE 17 at 7.)
And to be clear, the ALJ didn’t ignore Dr. Gottlieb’s opinion. Quite to the contrary, the
ALJ discussed Dr. Gottlieb’s opinion at length. But what the ALJ didn’t do was
adequately explain why he was accepting or discounting various parts of Dr. Gottlieb’s
opinion.
10
Throughout his decision, the ALJ runs through each physician’s findings and
indicates which parts he credits or doesn’t credit. Interestingly, there’s not a single
opinion he accepts entirely, which in and of itself isn’t a problem. But what is a
problem is the lack of explanation for the parts he either accepts or discounts,
particularly regarding Dr. Gottlieb. For example, the ALJ’s primary reason for not fully
crediting Dr. Gottlieb’s opinion is the fact that Bentley exhibited some improvement in
November 2011, but then Dr. Gottlieb found she couldn’t work in December 2011 and
February 2012. I don’t see the inconsistency here. Just because Bentley improved a bit
during November doesn’t mean that any backsliding of her condition should be
discredited as “inconsistent.” This strikes me a classic case of “cherry-picking” that the
Seventh Circuit has denounced time and time again. Scott, 647 F.3d at 740; Herron v.
Shalala, 19 F.3d 329, 333 (7th Cir. 1994). And it also fails to recognize the tendencies of
certain conditions – particularly those involving pain and neuropathy – to wax and
wane. See Migraine Symptoms and other Headache Symptoms, http://www. webmd.
com/migraines-headaches/guide/migraines-headaches-symptoms (last visited Sept.
23, 2015); see also e.g. Shauger v. Astrue, 675 F.3d 690, 696 (7th Cir. 2012). That’s not to say
that every ALJ must accept or reject every opinion whole-cloth. But what they need to
do is base their decisions as to what to accept or reject on substantial evidence. And
that simply didn’t happen here.
An ALJ’s failure to explain why he is discounting a treating physician’s opinion
is cause for remand. Scott, 647 F.3d at 740. That’s, in part, because an ALJ must build a
11
logical bridge from the evidence to the conclusion. Groves v. Apfel, 148 F.3d 809, 811 (7th
Cir. 1998). In other words, even though the evidence relied on by the ALJ to reach his
conclusions may constitute contradicting evidence such that he could discount
Gottlieb’s opinion, the ALJ must explain why that’s the case. Specifically, “the
regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment
relationship, frequency of examination, the physician's specialty, the types of tests
performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician's opinion.” Scott,
647 F. 3d at 740. The only explanation the ALJ gave for not fully crediting Dr. Gottlieb’s
assessment was that his opinion that Bentley could not go back to work in a factory
setting in February 2012 conflicted with improvement indicated in November 2011, and
the fact that disability determinations are reserved for the commissioner. (R. 20-21.) I
certainly agree with the ALJ on the second point, but that doesn’t preclude him from
giving controlling weight to Dr. Gottlieb’s medical opinions. Instead, evaluating the
factors outlined in Scott and other cases, it’s apparent that Dr. Gottlieb’s opinion as a
treating physician should have been given controlling weight: he saw Bentley about
every couple of months for over a year, including performing major surgery on her and
prescribing various other serious procedures for her; his specialty is in neurology which
is certainly the right field for someone dealing with nerve pain; and he routinely
ordered and performed a barrage of testing on Bentley over the course of his treatment
including MRIs, CT scans, diagnostic injections, and occupational evaluations.
12
The ALJ’s real quibble seems to be with the “consistency and supportability of
the physician’s opinion” (Scott, 647 F.3d at 740) and I have a hard time seeing Dr.
Gottlieb’s opinions as anything but consistent or supported. Post-surgery, Bentley’s
neck did a little better, but she still reported problems in her lumbar area. Dr. Gottlieb
at that point appeared to take a sort of a wait-and-see approach. The pain in her lumbar
area then got worse, sending her to more frequent visits with Dr. Gottlieb and leaving
to more injections, rhizomities, branch blocks, etc. From November 2011 through 2012,
Bentley reported headaches, some pain in her neck, and significant pain in her lumbar
area. Sure, her back “seemed better” at one appointment (November 2011), but
compared to what? I don’t read this as Dr. Gottlieb saying she was cured, and certainly
given the extent of the procedures and further consultations with other doctors that
Bentley had throughout 2012, that wasn’t the case.
What’s more, the ALJ failed to mention at all the opinion of the nurse practitioner
at the Community Occupational Medicine, LLC who confirmed Dr. Gottlieb’s findings.
An ALJ cannot simply ignore a line of evidence because it doesn’t support his
conclusion. Herron, 19 F.3d at 333. And “[w]hen the ALJ fails to mention an entire line
of evidence in his decision, we are unable to conduct a meaningful review because we
cannot establish if substantial evidence supported the denial of benefits.” Id. at 337. In
a case like this where that evidence supports an opinion that would otherwise receive
controlling weight, it can hardly be harmless error to omit it entirely.
13
The ALJ really only points to one appointment indicating some improvement,
and the evaluations of the state agency physicians who never met with Bentley – one of
whom had to correct his opinion due to error. And even then, the ALJ didn’t fully
credit their opinions. (R. 21, 23.) So it’s very unclear to me what evidence the ALJ was
relying on in deciding that Dr. Gottlieb’s opinion shouldn’t be given controlling weight.
Supposed inconsistencies aside, Dr. Gottlieb’s statements and notes remain the only
significant source of medical evidence in this case. And one thing an ALJ cannot do is
substitute his own judgment for that of a medical professional, or make medical
conclusions about a claimant's illness, without relying on medical evidence. See Clifford ,
227 F.3d at 870; Green v. Apfel , 204 F.3d 780, 781-82 (7th Cir. 2000). When the ALJ
attempted to refute Dr. Gottlieb’s statements, the dearth of medical evidence led him to
rely on his lay judgments about medical records and cherry-pick bits and pieces
without much reason to do so. And that’s simply not allowed.
At bottom, Bentley has been in a lot of pain for a long time. When more
conservative treatments didn’t work, she ended up with a series of injections, and then
major surgery. When even that didn’t help (or didn’t help enough), she went through
various rounds of other procedures including more injections, nerve blocks,
rhizotomies, and even a spinal stimulator implant. All of these things support Dr.
Gottlieb’s opinion that Bentley was in bad shape. I therefore find that the ALJ’s
decision to not give Dr. Gottlieb’s opinion controlling weight was not supported by
substantial evidence.
14
Although this issue is enough to remand, I also feel I should note that the ALJ
erred in completely discounting Bentley’s headaches. In determining how her
headaches may limit her capacity to work, the ALJ should have considered factors such
as Bentley’s daily activities, the timing and duration of her headaches, and the measures
she takes to treat her headaches. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), Shauger v. Astrue, 675 F.3d 690,
697 (7th Cir. 2012.) The ALJ purported to do this, but in the process, ended up
misstating much of the record.
The ALJ found that although Bentley had reported her headaches to her doctors
“on occasion,” she only treated them with OTC medications and lying down. (R. 15.)
He then found that “[t]here is no indication of the severity or frequency of the migraines
documents in th record” and “the claimant has not reported migraines to her pain
management physician.” (R. 15-16.) The ALJ’s recitation of the facts doesn’t take into
account the full record.
First, Bentley reported her headaches at almost every appointment since her
accident and also reported that they occur daily. For example, she reported “severe
headaches” to Dr. Gottlieb in March 2011 (R. 754), worsening headaches over the next
couple of visits (R. 752-53), and was still having some headaches in November 2011 (R.
793), and she reported her headaches on pain charts for Dr. Gottlieb in December 2011
(R. 791-92) and February 2012 (R. 787-88). Dr. Gottlieb noted these headaches in his
medical opinion from December 2011, and further indicated that Bentley needed to lie
down for 30-45 minutes due to “pain” (although, he doesn’t specify whether the pain is
15
due to her head, back, neck, or all three). (R. 743.) Dr. Gottlieb also found that these
headaches were “significant.” (R. 789.) The state agency physician, Dr. Collier, also
noted in February 2012 that Bentley reported daily migraines with no relief. (R. 836.) A
state agency physician noted the same. (R. 871.)
It is true, however, that Bentley didn’t report her headaches to Dr. Pai, her pain
specialist. I don’t really know why she didn’t, but neither does the ALJ. Maybe it’s
because she was referred to Dr. Pai for the pain in her lumbar area and specifically to
receive a nerve block in that area (R. 889, 891-92). But it doesn’t appear that the ALJ
ever asked her why she didn’t report her headaches to Dr. Pai and it’s his duty to fully
develop the record. Luna v. Shalala, 22 F.3d 687, 692 (7th Cir.1994). Otherwise, he can’t
really build a logical bridge between the evidence and his conclusion that the fact that
she didn’t report them to Dr. Pai must mean her headaches weren’t severe. Shauger, 675
F.3d at 697-98. To say that there is no indication of the severity and duration of her
headaches and that she only reported them “on occasion” is misleading. The record
indicates ongoing significant headaches that, at times, plagued Bentley on a daily basis,
and she reported them to multiple physicians on a regular basis.
It’s also not the case — as was suggested by the ALJ — that Bentley treats her
headaches with only OTC medications. Bentley was on several strong narcotics for her
back and neck that are also used to treat migraine headaches – a point Bentley directly
made to the ALJ during her testimony at the hearing. (R. 42-43.)
16
In sum, the record indicates that Bentley reported her headaches on a regular
basis to her physicians, that the pain was at times present on a daily basis, and that even
taking strong narcotics and lying down did not adequately relieve her pain. The ALJ’s
conclusion that her headaches would “not more than minimally interfere with the
claimant’s ability to perform basic work activity” (R. 16) was therefore not supported by
substantial evidence.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, this cause is REMANDED for further proceedings
consistent with this order.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: September 28, 2015
s/Philip P. Simon
PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17
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?