McWilliams v. SSA
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Plaintiff's 8 MOTION for Summary Judgment is OVERRULED; and 10 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgmentis SUSTAINED. Judgment in favor of Dft will be entered contemporaneously herewith. Signed by Judge Henry R. Wilhoit, Jr on 05/03/2012.(DAK)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
at LEXINGTON
Civil Action No. 11-325-HRW
DORSEY MCWILLIAMS,
v.
PLAINTIFF,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE
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 disability
insurance benefits and 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.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff filed his current application for disability insurance benefits on
April 2, 2009 and his application for supplemental security income benefits on
April 1, 2009, alleging disability beginning on January 1, 2006, due to "neck
problems [and] back problems" (Tr. 185). These applications were denied
initially and on reconsideration.
On September 28, 2010, an administrative hearing was conducted by
Administrative Law Judge Roger Reynolds (hereinafter "ALJ"), wherein Plaintiff,
accompanied by counsel, testified. At the hearing, Martha Goss, a vocational
expert (hereinafter "VE"), also testified.
At the hearing, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.920, the AL.l perfonned the
following five-step sequential analysis in order to detennine whether the Plaintiff
was disabled:
Step 1: If the claimant is perfonning substantial gainful work, he is not
disabled.
Step 2: If the claimant is not perfonning substantial gainful work, his
impainnent(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 perfonning substantial gainful work and has a
severe impainnent (or impainnents) that has lasted or is expected to last for
a continuous period of at least twelve months, and his impainnents (or
impainnents) meets or medically equals a listed impainnent contained in
Appendix 1, Subpart P, Regulation No.4, the claimant is disabled without
further inquiry.
Step 4: If the claimant's impainnent (or impainnents) does not prevent him
from doing his past relevant work, he is not disabled.
Step 5: Even if the claimant's impainnent or impainnents prevent him from
perfonning 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.
2
On November 18,2010, the ALJ issued his decision finding that Plaintiff
was not disabled.
Plaintiff was 47 years old at the time of the hearing decision (Tr. 180). He
has a GED and has worked as a delivery driver, building maintenance worker and
auto body repainnan (Tr. 10, 186).
At Step 1 of the sequential analysis, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not
engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date of disability
(Tr.60).
The ALJ then detennined, at Step 2, that Plaintiff suffers from chronic neck
pain status post anterior cervical disectomy and fusion of the C4 through C7
levels, chronic low back pain secondary to degenerative disc of the lumbar spine
with disc protrusion at L 1-L2 and L5-S 1 and disc bulges at the L2 through L5
levels status post surgery in 1991, which he found to be "severe" within the
meaning of the Regulations (Tr. 61-62).
At Step 3, the ALJ found that Plaintiffs impainnents did not meet or
medically equal any of the listed impainnents (Tr. 62-64).
The ALJ further found that Plaintiff could not return to his past relevant
work (Tr. 66). The ALJ then found that Plaintiff had the residual functional
3
capacity ("RFC") to perform less than the full range of light work as defined in 20
C.F.R. §§ 404. 1567(b), 416.967(b) (Tr. 64-66). He could perform light and
sedentary work with no climbing of ropes, ladders, or scaffolds; occasional
climbing of stairs or ramps; no work requiring frequent movement of the head; no
work with hands over the head; occasional stooping, kneeling, crouching, or
crawling; and no exposure to concentrated vibration (Tr. 64).
The ALJ finally concluded that these jobs exist in significant numbers in
the national and regional economies, as identified by the VE (Tr. 66-67).
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
ALl's decision as the final decision of the Commissioner on May 24,2011.
Plaintiff thereafter filed this civil action seeking a reversal of the
Commissioner's decision. Both parties have filed Motions for Summary
Judgment.
III. 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
4
relevant evidence as a 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 (6th Cir. 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 (6th Cir. 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 (6th 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 ALJ." Key v. Callahan, 109 F.3d 270,273
(6th Cir.1997).
B.
Plaintiff's Contentions on Appeal
Plaintiff contends that the ALl's finding of no disability is erroneous
because: (1) the ALJ improperly discounted the opinion of Plaintiff s treating
physician, James Henderson, M.D.; (2) the ALJ improperly evaluated Plaintiffs
subjective complaints and (3) the ALJ failed to consider Plaintiffs impairments in
combination.
5
C.
Analysis of Contentions on Appeal
Plaintiff s first claim of error is that the ALJ improperly discounted the
opinion of Plaintiffs treating physician, James Henderson, M.D. However,
Plaintiff does not identify any specific opinions articulated by Dr. Henderson or
express limitations imposed upon him by Dr. Henderson.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has
decline[d] to formulate arguments on [a claimant's]
behalf, or to undertake an open-ended review of the
entirety of the administrative record to determine (i)
whether it might contain evidence that arguably is
inconsistent with the Commissioner's decision, and (ii) if
so, whether the Commissioner sufficiently accounted for
this evidence. Rather, we limit our consideration to the
particular points that [a claimant] appears to raise in [his
/her] brief on appeal.
Hollon ex rei. Hollan v. Commissioner ofSocial Security, 447 F.3d 477,491 (6th
Cir. 2006). In Hollan, the court also refused to consider claimant's generalized
arguments regarding the physician's opinions of record:
[Claimant] has failed to cite any specific opinion that the
ALJ purportedly disregarded or discounted, much less
suggest how such an opinion might be impermissibly
inconsistent with the ALl's findings. In the absence of
any such focused challenge, we decline to broadly
scrutinize any and all treating physician opinions in the
6
record to ensure that they are properly accounted for in
the ALl's decision.
Id. See also, McPherson v. Kelsey, 125 F.3d 989, 995-996 (6th Cir. 1997) (" ,
[I]ssues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at
developed argumentation, are deemed waived. It is not sufficient for a party to
mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way, leaving the court to ... put
flesh on its bones. "') (citations omitted); United States v. Phibbs, 999 F.2d 1053,
1080 n. 12 (6th Cir. 1993)(noting that "it is not our function to craft an appellant's
arguments").
Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the hearing decision and the record and
finds no error in the ALl's consideration of the treatment records of Dr.
Henderson and his rejection of his 2006 statement of total disability. The ALl was
correct in disregarding this conclusory remark. It is within the province of the
ALl to make the legal determination of disability. The ALl is not bound by a
treating physician's conclusory statement, particularly where the ALl determines,
as he did in this case, where these is medical proof that Plaintiff retains the RFC to
work in some capacity other than her past work.
See King v. Heckler, 742 F.2d
968, 973 (6th Cir. 1984).
Plaintiffs second claim of error is that the ALl improperly evaluated
7
Plaintiffs subjective complaints. Again, Plaintiff fails to set forth argument in
support of this claim of error. Notwithstanding that Plaintiff has not adequately
presented this claim, the Court, having reviewed the record, finds that the ALJ did
not err in discounting Plaintiffs credibility.
It is well established that as the "ALJ has the opportunity to observe the
demeanor of a witness, his conclusions with respect to credibility should not be
discarded lightly and should be accorded deference." Hardaway v. Secretary of
Health and Human Services, 823 F.2d 922,928 (6 th Cir. 1987). In this case, the
ALJ found Plaintiffs statements as to the intensity, persistence and limiting
effects of his symptoms were "not credible" (Tr. 65). Subjective claims of
disabling pain must be supported by objective medical evidence. Duncan v.
Secretary ofHealth and Human Services, 801 F.2d 847, 852-853 (6 th Cir. 1986).
Based upon the record, Plaintiff s subjective complaints do not pass Duncan
muster.
The medical evidence of record contains mild to moderate findings and
no suggestion of an impairment or impairments which would preclude all work
activity.
Further, as the ALJ noted, Plaintiffs testimony and evidence in the record
of her daily activities undermines Dr. Rollins' opinion of disability. The Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that "[a]n ALJ may consider household and
8
social activities engaged in by the claimant in evaluating a claimant's assertions of
pain or ailments." Walters v. Commissioner ofSocial Security, 127 F.3d 525, 532
(6th Cir. 1997).
Plaintiff also maintains that the ALl did not consider the combined effects
of Plaintiffs impairments.
A review of the hearing decision reveals that the ALl considered Plaintiffs
impairments in combination at various stages in his evaluation. The ALl
discussed Plaintiffs impairments, both physical and mental, both severe and non
severe, at Step 3 of the sequential evaluation process, and specified that he
considered the same, alone and "in combination" (Tr. 61-65). Such articulations
have been found to be sufficient upon review. See Gooch v. Secretary ofHealth
and Human Services, 833 F.2d 589, 592 (6th Cir. 1987). Indeed, the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals stated in Loy v. Secretary ofHealth and Human Services, "[a]n
ALl's individual discussion of multiple impairments does not imply that he failed
to consider the effect of the impairments in combination, where the ALl
specifically refers to a 'combination of impairments' in finding that the plaintiff
does not meet the listings." Loy v. Secretary ofHealth and Human Services, 901
F.2d 1306, 1310 (6 th Cir. 1990). The Court finds that the ALl's approach in this
case passes Gooch and Loy muster and that Plaintiffs argument in this regard is
9
without merit.
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 Plaintiff's
Motion for Summary Judgment be OVERRULED and the Defendant's Motion
for Summary Judgment be SUSTAINED. A judgment in favor of the Defendant
will be entered contemporaneously herewith.
This 3rd day of May, 2012.
10
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?