Lloyd v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 21

OPINION AND ORDER. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 3/31/16. (cer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FRANK E. LLOYD, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:14-cv-2027 JVB

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of
Social Security Administration,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Frank E. Lloyd seeks judicial review of the Acting Social Security
Commissioner’s decision denying him disability insurance and supplemental income benefits,
and asks this Court to remand the case. For the reasons below, the Court affirms the decision of
the Acting Commissioner.

A.

Overview of the Case
Plaintiff was forty-seven years old at the time of the alleged disability onset date in

November 2007. He claims he became disabled as a result of breathing problems, a heart attack,
and an injury to the left heel. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Plaintiff had two
severe impairments: degenerative joint disease of the left ankle and chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease. Yet the ALJ found that, despite these impairments, Plaintiff was able to
perform a number of light unskilled jobs in the regional economy.

B.

Standard of Review
This Court has authority to review the Commissioner’s decision under 42 U.S.C.

§ 405(g). The Court must ensure that the ALJ has built an “accurate and logical bridge” from
evidence to conclusion. Thomas v. Colvin, 745 F.3d 802, 806 (7th Cir. 2014). The Court will
uphold decisions that apply the correct legal standard and are supported by substantial evidence.
Briscoe ex rel. Taylor v. Barnhart, 425 F.3d 345, 351 (7th Cir. 2005).

C.

Disability Standard
The Commissioner follows a five-step inquiry in evaluating claims for disability benefits

under the Social Security Act:
(1) whether the claimant is currently employed; (2) whether the claimant has a
severe impairment; (3) whether the claimant’s impairment is one that the
Commissioner considers conclusively disabling; (4) if the claimant does not have
a conclusively disabling impairment, whether he can perform his past relevant
work; and (5) whether the claimant is capable of performing any work in the
national economy.
Kastner v. Astrue, 697 F.3d 642, 646 (7th Cir. 2012).
The claimant bears the burden of proof at every step except step five. Clifford v. Apfel,
227 F.3d 863, 868 (7th Cir. 2000).

D.

Analysis
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ committed three errors: (1) she failed to assign proper

weight to Dr. Heinsen, Plaintiff’s treating physician; (2) she didn’t support her residual
functional capacity (RFC) findings by substantial evidence; and (3) she failed to consider the
appropriate Listings for plaintiff’s medical condition.

2

(1)

The ALJ sufficiently explained why she discounted Dr. Heinsen’s opinion
Plaintiff claims that the ALJ failed to give controlling weight to the opinion of Dr.

Heinsen, Plaintiff’s treating physician, without explaining why. He insists that Dr. Heinsen’s
opinion was based on subjective evidence in the case. Furthermore, he argues that the ALJ did
not indicate what weight she was attributing to the opinions of Dr. Mohamed Mokaden and Dr.
Frank Choate, and thus committed a reversible error.1
The ALJ discounted Dr. Heinsen’s opinions because they were inconsistent with the
objective evidence and because they were essentially a reiteration of Plaintiff’s subjective
complaints, which the ALJ found not credible. Plaintiff points to page 370 of the record for the
proposition that Dr. Heinsen’s opinions were based upon objective evidence. Question 4 of the
disability questionnaire directs: “Identify the clinical findings and test results that show your
patient’s medical impairments.” Dr. Heinsen wrote in the following:


He had an abnormal Doppler [illegible]



He needs to have test of his joint



An abnormal pulmonary function test

The Doppler test refers to his condition of thrombosis, which the other doctors found to be a
minimal impairment. The pulmonary function test refers to his breathing but, as Dr. Ashok
Jilhewar noted, the test revealed only minor abnormality. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion that
Dr. Heinsen also based his opinion on X-rays (see Pl.’s Reply Brief at 6) citing R. at 370 for
proposition that Dr. Heinsen relied on x-rays)), there’s nothing in his notes to suggest that was

1

In his Reply brief, Plaintiff also argues for the first time that the ALJ relied on unsigned doctor reports. Arguments
not raised in the opening brief are waived. But in any case, Plaintiff’s argument is frivolous. Each of the three
documents he challenges bears an electronic signature of the doctor (see, e.g., R. at 252) and there’s no indication
that these signatures were rubber stamped or inserted by someone other than the reviewing doctors.
3

the case. In fact, he only states that Plaintiff “needs to have a test of his joint.” (R. at 370.) On the
other hand, Dr. Jilhewar who testified as an expert at the hearing before the ALJ and whom the
ALJ found to be most knowledgeable, noted that the x-ray revealed only very minimal arthritis.
And there was no evidence that the ankle pain was treated beyond oral medication.
However, what hurt Dr. Heinsen’s credibility even more than these inconsistencies was
his opinion that Plaintiff could stand or walk fewer than two hours each during an eight-hour
workday, creating an inference that Plaintiff was bedridden. (R. at 361.) Such a severe limitation
is not supported in the record and is inconsistent with Plaintiff’s statements in the case.
As to the opinions of Dr. Mohamed Mokaden and Dr. Frank Choate, Plaintiff is correct
that the ALJ should have explained how much weight she was giving to these opinions. But if
the Court were to remand this case on that basis, the remand would be futile. The opinions of
Drs. Mokaden and Choate do not favor Plaintiff; rather, the ALJ’s RFC finding is more
restrictive than proposed by the two doctors, who found Plaintiff able to perform medium work.
In fact, in his Reply, Plaintiff seeks to exclude Dr. Choate’s opinion altogether because it’s
purportedly not signed.

(2)

RFC determination was not erroneous
Plaintiff suggests that the ALJ did not explain how she arrived at her conclusions

regarding his RFC and did not include certain impairments. (Plaintiff is silent as to which
additional impairments should have been included.) Plaintiff also insists that the ALJ’s reference
to degenerative joint disease as “Plaintiff’s alleged impairment” shows her bias.

4

As to the latter argument, Plaintiff talks himself out of it by noting that the ALJ found the
heel condition to be a severe impairment. As often is the case in legal writing, the word “alleged”
was merely misused and had no legal effect on the ALJ’s overall decision.
The Court finds no error in the ALJ’s RFC finding. She accounted for all of Plaintiff’s
limitations and, with the exception of Dr. Heinsen, was more restrictive in her assessment than
were the assessments of most of the doctors.

(3)

Substantial Evidence Supports the ALJ findings regarding the Listings
Plaintiff believes that the ALJ should have considered listings 1.032 and 4.12.3 But these

listings would come into play only if the ALJ believed Plaintiff’s subjective complaints that he
had extreme walking limitation or that he has a serious cardiovascular disease. As explained
above, she found less restrictive limitations, and her findings were supported by substantial
evidence.

E.

Conclusion
For these reasons, the Court affirms the decision of the Acting Commissioner.

SO ORDERED on March 31, 2016.

S/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2
3

1.03 Reconstructive surgery or surgical arthrodesis of a major weight.
4.12 Peripheral arterial disease.
5