Buckman v. SSA
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 11 is OVERRULUED and the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 14 be SUSTAINED. A judgment in favor of the Defendant will be entered. Signed by Judge Henry R. Wilhoit, Jr on 9/23/2014.(TJZ)cc: COR
EatJoof.ll District of Kentuoky
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION
at COVINGTON
F I LED
SE? 23 2ot4
AT ASHLAND
ROBERT R. CARR
CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT
Civil Action No. 13-163-HRW
CYNTHIA LYNN BUCKMAN,
v.
PLAINTIFF,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
CAROLYN COLVIN,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
DEFENDANT.
Plaintiff has brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.c. §405(g) to challenge a final
decision of the Defendant denying Plaintiff's application for supplemental security income
benefits. The Court having reviewed the record in this case and the dispositive motions filed by
the parties, and being otherwise sufficiently advised, for the reasons set forth herein, finds that
the decision of the Administrative Law Judge is supported by substantial evidence and should be
affirmed.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff filed her current application for supplemental security income benefits on
November 12,2009, alleging disability beginning on March 20, 1997, due to scoliosis,
depression, arthritis, back pain, memory loss and injuries sustained in a 1991 car accident (Tr.
211). This application was denied initially and on reconsideration. On February 2, 2012, an
administrative hearing was conducted by Administrative Law Judge Samuel Rodner (hereinafter
"ALl"), wherein Plaintiff, accompanied by counsel, testified. At the hearing, Janet Chapman, a
vocational expert (hereinafter "VE"), also testified.
At the hearing, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.920, the ALJ performed the following fivestep sequential analysis in order to determine whether the Plaintiff was disabled:
Step 1: If the claimant is performing substantial gainful work, he is not disabled.
Step 2: Jfthe claimant is not performing substantial gainful work, his impairment(s) must
be severe before he can be found to be disabled based upon the requirements in 20 C.F.R.
§ 416.920(b).
Step 3: If the claimant is not performing substantial gainful work and has a severe
impairment (or impairments) that has lasted or is expected to last for a continuous period
of at least twelve months, and his impairments (or impairments) meets or medically
equals a listed impairment contained in Appendix 1, Subpart P, Regulation No.4, the
claimant is disabled without further inquiry.
Step 4: If the claimant's impairment (or impairments) does not prevent him from doing
his past relevant work, he is not disabled.
Step 5: Even if the claimant's impairment or impairments prevent him from performing
his past relevant work, if other work exists in significant numbers in the national
economy that accommodates his residual functional capacity and vocational factors, he is
not disabled.
On April 27, 2012, the ALJ issued his decision finding that Plaintiff was not disabled.
Plaintiff was 46 years old on the date of application. She has a 12th grade education (Tr. 215),
and although she has worked in the past, none of her employment is relevant pursuant to the
regulations.
At Step 1 of the sequential analysis, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in
substantial gainful activity since the date of her application of benefits (Tr.13).
The ALJ then determined, at Step 2, that Plaintiff suffers from continuing and chronic left
hip pain status post surgery with an internal fixation, joint space narrowing of the left hip, severe
osteoarthritis, non-extreme morbid obesity and scoliosis, which he found to be "severe" within
2
the meaning of the Regulations (Tr. 13-15).
At Step 3, the ALJ found that Plaintiffs impairments did not meet or medically equal any
of the listed impairments (Tr. 15).
The ALJ further determined that Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to
perform light work with lifting and carrying fifty pounds occasionally, sitting for up to five hours
in an eight-hour workday in increments not to exceed four hours, standing for five hours in an
eight-hour workday in increments not to exceed four hours, walking for up to two hours in an
eight-hour workday in increments not to exceed one hour and occasionally climbing stairs,
ramps, ladders or scaffolds.
The ALJ concluded that these jobs exist in significant numbers in the national and
regional economies, as identified by the VE (Tr. 20).
Accordingly, the ALJ found Plaintiff not to be disabled at Step 5 of the sequential
evaluation process.
The Appeals Council denied Plaintiffs request for review and adopted the ALJ's decision
as the final decision of the Commissioner.
Plaintiff thereafter filed this civil action seeking a reversal of the Commissioner's
decision. Both parties have filed Motions for Summary Judgment [Docket Nos. 10 and 14] and
this matter is ripe for decision.
II. ANALYSIS
A.
Standard of Review
The essential issue on appeal to this Court is whether the ALl's decision is supported by
substantial evidence. "Substantial evidence" is defined as "such relevant evidence as a
3
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion;" it is based on the record as a
whole and must take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight. Garner
v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383,387 (6 th CiT. 1984). If the Commissioner's decision is supported by
substantial evidence, the reviewing Court must affirm. Kirk v. Secretary ofHealth and Human
Services, 667 F.2d 524, 535 (6 th CiT. 1981), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 957 (1983). "The court may
not try the case de novo nor resolve conflicts in evidence, nor decide questions of credibility."
Bradley v. Secretary ofHealth and Human Services, 862 F.2d 1224, 1228 (6 th Cir. 1988).
Finally, this Court must defer to the Commissioner's decision "even if there is substantial
evidence in the record that would have supported an opposite conclusion, so long as substantial
evidence supports the conclusion reached by the ALl." Key v. Callahan, 109 F.3d 270, 273 (6th
Cir.1997).
B.
Plaintiff's Contentions on Appeal
Plaintiff asserts that the ALl erred in weighing the medical evidence.
C.
Analysis of Contentions on Appeal
In arguing error, Plaintiff claims that the ALl improperly discounted the opinion of Bruce
Spiegel, D.O., in favor of other medical opinions in the record.
"In order to determine whether the ALl acted properly in disagreeing with a medical
source, we must first determine the medical source's classification," Ealy v. Comm'r ofSoc. Sec.,
594 F.3d 504, 514 (6th Cir.2010), as "not all medical sources need be treated equally," Smith v.
Comm'r ofSoc. Sec., 482 F.3d 873, 875 (6th Cir.2007). The Social Security regulations classify
"acceptable medical sources into three types: nonexamining sources, nontreating (but examining)
sources, and treating sources." ld. at 875. Generally, more weight is given to the medical
4
"opinion of a source who has examined [the claimant] than to the opinion of a source who has
not examined [the claimant]." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1 527(c)(1); see also Norris v. Comm'r ofSoc.
Sec., 461 Fed.Appx. 433, 439 (6th Cir.2012) (noting that a nonexamining source's opinion is
given less deference than an examining (but not treating) source's opinion, which is given less
deference than a treating source). But "[i]n appropriate circumstances, opinions from State
agency medical and psychological consultants ... may be entitled to greater weight than the
opinions of treating or examining sources." SSR 96-{ip, 1996 WL 374180, at *3. One such
instance is where the "State agency medical or p[s]ychological consultant's opinion is based on a
review of a complete case record that includes a medical report from a specialist in the
individual's particular impairment which provides more detailed and comprehensive information
than what was available to the individual's treating source." Id. "The more a medical source
presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory
findings, the more weight [the ALJ] will give that opinion." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).
Generally, more weight is given to opinions that are "more consistent ... with the record as a
whole," id. § 404. 1527(c)(4), and opinions of "a specialist about medical issues related to his or
her area of specialty." Id. § 404. 1527(c)(5).
Dr. Spiegel is not a treating physician; he examined Plaintiff on one occasion, in June of
2011, at the behest of her counsel, in order to determine her level of physical functioning.
On examination, Dr. Siegel reported a "moderate-to-severe" loss of the lumbar lordosis with
restricted range of motion, trace reflexes in the knees, limited strength of the left hip, and limited
motion of the left knee (Tr. 452-53). Dr. Siegel noted, based on some of the medical records he
reviewed, the physical findings from the examination, and Plaintiffs subjective complaints, she
5
had traumatic arthritis and degenerative joint disease of the left hip with chronic low back pain
and symptomatic scoliosis (Tr. 453). Dr. Siegel opined Plaintiff could not sit in one position for
more than thirty minutes at a time or two and one-half hours in an eight hour workday; stand or
walk for more than fifteen minutes at a time and two hours in an eight-hour workday; and lift
more than five pounds (Tr. 453). Dr. Siegel noted x-rays would be beneficial in determining the
degree of scoliosis of the back and arthritis of the left hip and knee (Tr. 453). Dr. Siegel
suggested Plaintiff would benefit from physical therapy if the x-rays did not reveal a certain
degree of deterioration and recommended anti-inflammatory medication (Tr. 453). He noted that,
given Plaintiffs age, she would probably not benefit from surgical intervention (Tr. 453).
The ALJ stated several reasons for assigning little weight to this opinion. First, he
pointed out that even Dr. Siegel concedes there is no imagery supporting his opinion. It follows
that his assesment is based, at least in part, on Plaintiffs subjective complaints. This calls into
the question the validity of his opinion, as does the lack of objective testing and treatment for the
allegedly disabling impairments.
In addition, as noted by the ALJ, his opinion of dire physical limitations at odds with the
other medical opinions in the record. The ALJ gave "significant" weight to the opinion of
Bethany C. Wilson, M.D. (Tr. 19,455-65). Dr. Wilson reviewed some ofthe medical evidence
and examined Plaintiff on August 20, 2011, for complaints oflower back and left leg pain (Tr.
455). Plaintiff indicated medication did not resolve the pain and that she had no insurance or
extra money to purchase the medication (Tr. 455). Plaintiff indicated she drank beer and smoked
cigarettes (Tr. 455). On examination, Dr. Wilson reported Plaintiff had no muscle asymmetry or
atrophy; decreased range of motion of the hip; normal range of motion of the lower back except
6
slightly impaired extension; negative straight-leg raising; normal range of motion with the left
knee; normal gait and station; 5/5 muscle strength; normal reflexes, and no sensory deficits (Tr.
456-57). Dr. Wilson opined Plaintiff could lift or carry up to fifty pounds; sit or stand for five
hours during an eight-hour workday in four hour increments In addition to Dr. Wilson's opinion,
the ALJ gave some weight to the opinion of John Gedmark, M.D. (Tr. 442-49). Dr. Gedmark
reviewed a portion of the record and, in March 2010, opined Plaintiff could lift fifty pounds
occasionally and twenty-five pound frequently, stand or walk for about six hours in an eight-hour
workday, and sit for about six hours in an eight-hour workday (Tr. 443).
Finally, Plaintiff activities belie a contention of disability. She reported that she takes
care of her mother, does laundry and occasionally rider her bike (Tr. 233-236, 246). The Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that "[a]n ALJ may consider household and social activities
engaged in by the claimant in evaluating a claimant's assertions of pain or ailments." Walters v.
Commissioner o/Social Security, 127 F.3d 525, 532 (6 th Cir. 1997).
A review of the record reveals that the ALJ reviewed the evidence in the record and his
conclusions are supported by substantial evidence.
III. CONCLUSION
The Court finds that the ALl's decision is supported by substantial evidence on the
record. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiffs Motion for Summary
Judgment be OVERRULED and the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be
SUST AINED. A judgment in favor of the Defendant will be entered contemporaneously
herewith.
This 23 rd day of September, 2014.
7
--~'-;-;-::-lh='t
Henry R. WI 01, Jr ., Senior Judge
8
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?