Kinder v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
20
OPINION AND ORDER: The ALJ failed to accord proper weight to the treating physicians findings regarding Mr. Kinders residual functional capacity. For this reason, the court remands the case for further consideration. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 9/26/2018. (jss)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
STANLEY R. KINDER,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 4:16-cv-076-JVB-PRC
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of
Social Security Administration,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Stanley R. Kinder seeks judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s
decision denying him disability benefits and asks this Court to remand the case. For the reasons
below, this Court remands the ALJ’s decision.
A.
Overview of the Case
Plaintiff alleges that he became disabled on May 1, 2011. (R. at 24.) His date last
insured is September 30, 2015. (R. at 64.) Plaintiff worked as an iron worker from 1999 to
2008, before aggravation of symptoms from congestive heart failure. (R. at 65.) Additionally,
plaintiff was able to work as a dorm representative, a mostly sedentary position, during a period
of incarceration from July 2011 until October 29, 2012 (R.at 68.) After hearing Mr. Kinder’s
claim for disability based on anxiety, back pain, and Level III heart failure, the Administrative
Law Judge (“ALJ”) found that plaintiff suffered from severe physical impairments relating to his
heart disease. (R. at 24.) The ALJ did, however, find that a number of jobs existed which the
plaintiff could perform. (R. at 43.) Based on a finding that other jobs exist which are within the
1
plaintiff’s residual functional capacity, the ALJ denied the claimant’s disability benefit request
on March 13, 2015. (R. at 44.)
B.
Standard of Review
This Court has authority to review the Commissioner’s decision under 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g). The Court will ensure that the ALJ built an “accurate and logical bridge” from
evidence to conclusion. Thomas v. Colvin, 745 F.3d 802, 806 (7th Cir. 2014). This requires the
ALJ to “confront the [plaintiff’s] evidence” and “explain why it was rejected.” Thomas v. Colvin,
826 F.3d 953, 961 (7th Cir. 2016). 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). Evidence is substantial if “a reasonable mind might accept [it] as
adequate to support [the ALJ’s] conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971).
C.
Disability Standard
To determine eligibility for disability benefits under the Social Security Act, the ALJ will
perform a five-step inquiry:
“(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 burden of proof resides with the claimant for the first four steps, shifting to the
Commissioner for determination of disability at step five. Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 868
(7th Cir. 2000).
2
D.
Analysis
Plaintiff argues that proper weight was not assigned by the Administrative Law Judge to
the treating physician’s findings. Mr. Kinder’s treating physician was Dr. Joyce Hubbard for
most of his illness, including the period from November 2012 to February 26, 2014. (R. at 38.)
During that period, Dr. Hubbard found that Mr. Kinder could sit for no more than four hours in
an eight-hour work day and stand for no more than one hour. (R. at 205.)
As the treating physician, Dr. Hubbard’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight due to
the greater duration and depth of the relationship between a treating physician and a long-term
patient.
“If a treating source’s medical opinion on an issue of the nature and severity of an
individual’s impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and
laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial
evidence in the case record, the adjudicator must give it controlling weight.”
SSR96-8p.
Here, the ALJ cites two reasons to discount Dr. Hubbard’s opinion. First, the ALJ
suggests that Dr. Hubbard’s findings are “unsupported by her previous treatment records.” (R. at
37.) Second, the ALJ found that the consultative examining physician’s findings did not support
Dr. Hubbard’s conclusions regarding Mr. Kinder’s residual functional capacity (RFC). (R. at
37.)
First, in declaring Dr. Hubbard’s findings unsupported by her own records, the ALJ relied
upon Mr. Kinder’s office visit with Dr. Hubbard in November 2012 during which Dr. Hubbard
stated Mr. Kinder was “doing well” and “had no complaints.” (R. at 36.) A hopeful statement,
however, such as “doing well” does not necessarily indicate a diagnosis which is inconsistent
with Dr. Hubbard’s overall findings. See Bauer v. Astrue, 532 F.3d 606, 609 (7th Cir. 2008)
3
(finding that the statement that a patient was “doing quite well” was insufficient to accord little
weight to the treating physician’s opinion). Chronically ill patients may have good and bad days,
and a statement that a patient is “doing well” should not be taken by itself as conclusive of
inconsistency on the treating physician’s part. Id. The third-party function report dated
December 6, 2012, supports this interpretation as well, noting that Mr. Kinder experiences “good
days and bad days.” (R. at 310.) This is further supported by Dr. Hubbard’s own comments at a
later visit dated October 14, 2013 in which Dr. Hubbard’s complete statement is:
“Stanley seems to be doing okay right at the moment. However, he is in atrial
flutter and will need to be cardioverted . . . He is obviously significantly limited
by his heart disease . . . with recurrent bouts of arrhythmia and congestive heart
failure.”
(R. 1099-1100.)
From the record, then, Dr. Hubbard’s assessment of “doing well” or “doing okay” are
meant to be measures of Mr. Kinder’s wellness relative to his disease’s prognosis not a statement
of overall health. A normal individual in atrial flutter would certainly not be considered “doing
well” at that moment. For these reasons, Dr. Hubbard’s assessment was not inconsistent and the
statement that the claimant was “doing well” should not have been noted by the ALJ as a reason
for awarding greater weight to the consultative examining physician’s findings. (R. at 37.)
Second, the ALJ found that the consultative examining physician’s findings did not
support Dr. Hubbard’s conclusions regarding Mr. Kinder’s residual functional capacity (RFC).
(R. at 37.) This inconsistency was then cited by the ALJ in assigning greater weight to the
examining physician’s recommendations rather than the treating physician as ordinarily required.
(R. at 37.) SSR96-8p. The record, however, reflects that multiple physicians including Dr.
Hubbard were in accord that Mr. Kinder suffers from Class III heart failure. (R. at 934, 1186.)
At no point did any physician challenge or disagree with this conclusion. Therefore, the only
4
source of disagreement was the residual functional capacity consistent with a METS test score of
9.4 from 2009 (R. 713), but this disagreement ignores that Mr. Kinder’s more recent METS
score had decreased to a 7 in 2013 and had to be discontinued due to medical issues such as
shortness of breath, coughing, and chest and leg pain. (R. 935.) These symptoms were noted by
the physician administering the test as consistent with Dr. Hubbard’s finding of Class III heart
failure. (R. at 935.) Since the claimant’s stated onset of disability is May 1, 2011, this
decreasing METS score is consistent with a reduction in functional capacity from the time of the
first test in 2009 to the time of the second test in 2013. Taken collectively, it cannot reasonably
be said that the primary treating physician’s opinion was “inconsistent with the other substantial
evidence in the case record,” SSR96-8p.
E.
Conclusion
The ALJ failed to accord proper weight to the treating physician’s findings regarding Mr.
Kinder’s residual functional capacity. For this reason, the court remands the case for further
consideration.
SO ORDERED on September 26, 2018.
s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
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?