Saylor v. SSA
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM OPINION: administrative decision should be affirmed; separate judgment and order will be entered consistent w/ this opinion. Signed by Judge G. Wix Unthank on 9/15/2011.(STB)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-405-GWU
JIMMY SAYLOR,
VS.
PLAINTIFF,
MEMORANDUM OPINION
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
DEFENDANT.
INTRODUCTION
Jimmy Saylor brought this action to obtain judicial review of the unfavorable
portion of a partially favorable administrative decision on his application for Disability
Insurance Benefits (DIB). The case is before the court on cross-motions for
summary judgment.
APPLICABLE LAW
The Commissioner is required to follow a five-step sequential evaluation
process in assessing whether a claimant is disabled.
1.
Is the claimant currently engaged in substantial gainful activity?
If so, the claimant is not disabled and the claim is denied.
2.
If the claimant is not currently engaged in substantial gainful
activity, does he have any “severe” impairment or combination
of impairments--i.e., any impairments significantly limiting his
physical or mental ability to do basic work activities? If not, a
finding of non-disability is made and the claim is denied.
3.
The third step requires the Commissioner to determine
whether the claimant’s severe impairment(s) or combination of
impairments meets or equals in severity an impairment listed
1
10-405 Jimmy Saylor
in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 (the Listing of
Impairments). If so, disability is conclusively presumed and
benefits are awarded.
4.
At the fourth step the Commissioner must determine whether
the claimant retains the residual functional capacity to perform
the physical and mental demands of his past relevant work. If
so, the claimant is not disabled and the claim is denied. If the
plaintiff carries this burden, a prima facie case of disability is
established.
5.
If the plaintiff has carried his burden of proof through the first
four steps, at the fifth step the burden shifts to the
Commissioner to show that the claimant can perform any other
substantial gainful activity which exists in the national
economy, considering his residual functional capacity, age,
education, and past work experience.
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520; 416.920; Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383, 387 (6th Cir.
1984); Walters v. Commissioner of Social Security, 127 F.3d 525, 531 (6th Cir.
1997).
Review of the Commissioner's decision is limited in scope to determining
whether the findings of fact made are supported by substantial evidence. Jones v.
Secretary of Health and Human Services, 945 F.2d 1365, 1368-1369 (6th Cir.
1991). This "substantial evidence" is "such evidence as a reasonable mind shall
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, 745 F.2d at 387.
In reviewing the record, the court must work with the medical evidence before
it, despite the plaintiff's claims that he was unable to afford extensive medical work2
10-405 Jimmy Saylor
ups. Gooch v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 833 F.2d 589, 592 (6th
Cir. 1987). Further, a failure to seek treatment for a period of time may be a factor
to be considered against the plaintiff, Hale v. Secretary of Health and Human
Services, 816 F.2d 1078, 1082 (6th Cir. 1987), unless a claimant simply has no way
to afford or obtain treatment to remedy his condition, McKnight v. Sullivan, 927 F.2d
241, 242 (6th Cir. 1990).
Additional information concerning the specific steps in the test is in order.
Step four refers to the ability to return to one's past relevant category of work.
Studaway v. Secretary, 815 F.2d 1074, 1076 (6th Cir. 1987). The plaintiff is said to
make out a prima facie case by proving that he or she is unable to return to work.
Cf. Lashley v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 708 F.2d 1048, 1053 (6th
Cir. 1983). However, both 20 C.F.R. § 416.965(a) and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563
provide that an individual with only off-and-on work experience is considered to
have had no work experience at all. Thus, jobs held for only a brief tenure may not
form the basis of the Commissioner's decision that the plaintiff has not made out its
case. Id. at 1053.
Once the case is made, however, if the Commissioner has failed to properly
prove that there is work in the national economy which the plaintiff can perform,
then an award of benefits may, under certain circumstances, be had. E.g., Faucher
v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 17 F.3d 171 (6th Cir. 1994). One of the
ways for the Commissioner to perform this task is through the use of the medical
3
10-405 Jimmy Saylor
vocational guidelines which appear at 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2
and analyze factors such as residual functional capacity, age, education and work
experience.
One of the residual functional capacity levels used in the guidelines, called
"light" level work, involves lifting no more than twenty pounds at a time with frequent
lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to ten pounds; a job is listed in this category
if it encompasses a great deal of walking or standing, or when it involves sitting
most of the time with some pushing and pulling of arm or leg controls; by definition,
a person capable of this level of activity must have the ability to do substantially all
these activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b). "Sedentary work" is defined as having
the capacity to lift no more than ten pounds at a time and occasionally lift or carry
small articles and an occasional amount of walking and standing. 20 C.F.R. §
404.1567(a), 416.967(a).
However, when a claimant suffers from an impairment "that significantly
diminishes his capacity to work, but does not manifest itself as a limitation on
strength, for example, where a claimant suffers from a mental illness . . .
manipulative restrictions . . . or heightened sensitivity to environmental
contaminants . . . rote application of the grid [guidelines] is inappropriate . . . ."
Abbott v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 918, 926 (6th Cir. 1990).
If this non-exertional
impairment is significant, the Commissioner may still use the rules as a framework
for decision-making, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, Rule 200.00(e);
4
10-405 Jimmy Saylor
however, merely using the term "framework" in the text of the decision is insufficient,
if a fair reading of the record reveals that the agency relied entirely on the grid. Id.
In such cases, the agency may be required to consult a vocational specialist.
Damron v. Secretary, 778 F.2d 279, 282 (6th Cir. 1985). Even then, substantial
evidence to support the Commissioner's decision may be produced through reliance
on this expert testimony only if the hypothetical question given to the expert
accurately portrays the plaintiff's physical and mental impairments. Varley v.
Secretary of Health and Human Services, 820 F.2d 777 (6th Cir. 1987).
DISCUSSION
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that Saylor, a 50-year-old1
man with a high school education, suffered from impairments related to being status
post coronary artery bypass grafting in two vessels, carpal tunnel syndrome,
peripheral neuropathy, degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, multiple
myalgias, and fibromyalgia. (Tr. 11, 15). While the plaintiff was found to be unable
to return to his past relevant work, the ALJ determined that he retained the residual
functional capacity to perform a restricted range of light level work. (Tr. 12, 15).
Since the available work was found to constitute a significant number of jobs in the
national economy, the claimant could not be considered totally disabled. (Tr. 15-
This was the plaintiff’s age on December 31, 2008, the date he was last insured
for the purposes of DIB. (Tr. 15).
1
5
10-405 Jimmy Saylor
16). The ALJ based this decision, in large part, upon the testimony of a vocational
expert. (Tr. 16).
The court must first determine the time period relevant to this appeal. Saylor
alleged a disability onset date of January 20, 2003 on his DIB application filed
January of 2008. (Tr. 135). The plaintiff had previously filed a DIB application in
October of 2004, which was denied at all administrative levels and became final on
March 26, 2007. (Tr. 9). The ALJ declined to reopen the prior denial decision.
(Id.). This denial is now final under the doctrine of res judicata and, so, the earliest
the claimant can qualify for DIB is March 27, 2008. The ALJ found that Saylor’s
DIB-insured status expired on December 31, 2008. (Tr. 11). Therefore, the plaintiff
must prove he became disabled between these dates in order to qualify for DIB.
After review of the evidence presented, the undersigned concludes that the
administrative decision is supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the court
must grant the defendant’s summary judgment motion and deny that of the plaintiff.
The hypothetical question presented to Vocational Expert Jackie Rogers
included such limitations as (1) an inability to stand for more than four hours a day
in an eight-hour day, and walk for more than three hours in an eight-hour day;2 (2)
an inability to continuously lift more than 10 pounds, occasionally lift more than 20
pounds, frequently carry more than 10 pounds or occasionally carry more than 20
2
The claimant would be able to sit for eight hours a day. (Tr. 56).
6
10-405 Jimmy Saylor
pounds; (3) an inability to ever use the hands for repetitive pushing, pulling, or fine
manipulation;3 (4) an inability to use the left foot for the repetitive operation of foot
controls; (5) an inability to more than occasionally bend, climb and reach above
shoulder level; (6) an inability to ever squat or crawl; and (7) a “mild” restriction
involving exposure to moving machinery, unprotected heights, temperature
extremes, dust, fumes, and chemicals or driving automobiles. (Tr. 56-57). In
response, the witness identified a significant number of jobs which could still be
performed. (Tr. 57). Therefore, assuming that the vocational factors considered by
Rogers fairly depicted Saylor’s condition, then a finding of disabled status, within the
meaning of the Social Security Act, is precluded.
The hypothetical question fairly characterized Saylor’s condition as required
by Varley. In July of 2008, Dr. Alam Khan, a treating physician, opined that the
plaintiff would be able to sit for a total of eight hours, stand for a total of four hours,
and walk for a total of three hours. (Tr. 720). Dr. Khan indicated that the claimant
would be restricted to lifting and carrying up to 20 pounds occasionally, lifting 10
pounds continuously and carrying 10 pounds frequently. (Id.). Simple grasping
would not be restricted but Saylor would not be able to perform pushing, pulling, or
fine manipulation with either the left or right hand. (Id.). The doctor indicated that
he would be never be able to squat or crawl and would only occasionally be able to
The plaintiff would be able to perform simple grasping with both the left and right
hands. (Tr. 56).
3
7
10-405 Jimmy Saylor
bend, climb or reach above shoulder level. (Id.). Finally, the plaintiff would be
mildly restricted with regard to exposure to fumes, gases, dust, unprotected heights,
moving machinery, and marked changes in temperature or humidity, and driving an
automobile. (Id.). The ALJ gave this opinion “great weight” and presented all of
these limitations to the vocational expert, who identified a significant number of jobs
in response to the aforementioned hypothetical question. (Tr. 14). Therefore, the
ALJ’s findings were consistent with the opinion of a treating source.
Dr. Khan had previously stated in April of 2007 that Saylor was totally
disabled. (Tr. 353). He reiterated this opinion in May of 2008. (Tr. 516). Such an
opinion goes to the ultimate issue in the case and is not binding on the
administration under the federal regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1). A
superseding opinion by a treating physician is also entitled to greater weight than
an earlier report by the same source. Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383, 389 (6thCir.
1984). When the physician’s specific functional restrictions issued in July of 2008
were considered by the vocational expert, a significant number of jobs were noted
to remain available. Thus, Dr. Khan’s disability opinion appears inconsistent with
his actual findings regarding the plaintiff’s physical ability. Therefore, the ALJ
properly rejected this opinion in favor of the specific physical limitations.
Dr. Azhar Aslam also treated Saylor. (Tr. 566-572, 721-728, 760-774, 790795). The only restrictions he placed on the plaintiff’s activities were a need to
8
10-405 Jimmy Saylor
exercise regularly, watch his diet and lose weight. (Tr. 568). Therefore, this opinion
also does not support the plaintiff’s disability claim.
Dr. Robert Brown reviewed the record in July of 2008 and opined that Saylor
could perform light level work, restricted from a full range by a “limited” ability to
push or pull with the upper extremities, an inability to more than occasionally climb
ramps or stairs, an inability to ever climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds and to balance,
a limited ability to reach in all directions, a need to avoid concentrated exposure to
temperature extremes and a need at avoid all exposure to hazards. (Tr. 573-580).
The ALJ’s findings were essentially consistent with this opinion and it does not
support the plaintiff’s claim of total disability.
Dr. Barry Burchett examined Saylor in April of 2008 and noted an impression
of coronary artery disease, being status post two vessel coronary artery bypass
grafting, chronic chest wall tenderness following sternotomy, possible fibromyalgia,
hypertension and obesity. (Tr. 502). Dr. Burchett did not identify the existence of
more severe physical restrictions than those found by the ALJ. (Tr. 499-505).
Thus, this report also does not support the plaintiff’s disability claim.
Dr. Karen Saylor, another treating source, indicated that the plaintiff would
be limited to less than a full range of sedentary level work in May, 2007 and April,
2008.4 (Tr. 355, 506). The ALJ indicated that Dr. Saylor’s April, 2008 opinion was
Dr. Saylor opined that the plaintiff was totally disabled in January of 2005. (Tr.
238). This was before the relevant time period and would not be binding on the ALJ
4
9
10-405 Jimmy Saylor
not supported by sufficient objective medical data and was inconsistent with other
evidence of record. (Tr. 14). The ALJ rejected the opinion as binding in favor of
that of Dr. Khan, who was also a treating source whose opinion offset that of Dr.
Saylor. (Id.). The ALJ did not specifically address the doctor’s May, 2007 findings.
This might be seen as a violation of the requirement of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)
which requires an ALJ to give good reasons for not crediting the opinion of a
treating source. Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security, 378 F. 3d 541, 544 (6th
Cir. 2004). However, the same rationale for rejecting these May, 2007 restrictions
exists as for rejecting the May, 2008 opinion and the claimant has not asserted that
this omission constituted reversible error. Ultimately, the ALJ did rely upon the
opinion of another treating source in Dr. Khan.
Therefore, under these
circumstances, the court finds the error to be harmless.
Saylor asserts that the ALJ erred by failing to consider the combined effects
of all of the impairments from which he suffers. However, the court has already
determined that the hypothetical question fairly depicted his condition. Thus, the
ALJ implicitly considered the combined effects of all of his impairments. The ALJ
specifically indicated that he had considered all of the impairments in combination.
(Tr. 12). An ALJ’s individual discussion of multiple impairments does not imply that
he failed to consider the effect of the impairments in combination in determining that
the claimant does not meet the Listings. Loy v. Secretary of Health and Human
under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1).
10
10-405 Jimmy Saylor
Services, 901 F.2d 1306, 1310 (6th Cir. 1990). Therefore, the court must reject the
claimant’s argument.
Saylor argues that his medical problems would prevent him from maintaining
employment and, so, he could not meet the duration requirements for substantial
gainful activity. The plaintiff cites the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case of Gatliff
v. Commissioner of Social Security, 172 F.3d 690 (9th Cir. 1999). However, in
Gatliff, the record contained considerable evidence that the claimant would not be
able to maintain employment more than a couple of months and the ALJ had even
acknowledged this fact. Gatliff, 172 F.3d at 692. In the present action, Saylor has
not identified similar evidence suggesting that he would not be able to maintain
employment. Therefore, the court must reject the plaintiff’s argument.
The undersigned concludes that the administrative decision should be
affirmed. A separate judgment and order will be entered simultaneously consistent
with this opinion.
This the 15th day of September, 2011.
11
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?