Puckett v. SSA
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: DENYING pla's 11 MOTION for Summary Judgment; GRANTING dft's 12 MOTION for Summary Judgment; the court will enter a separate judgment. Signed by Judge Jennifer B Coffman on 12/28/12.(KJR)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
LEXINGTON
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-379-JBC
CRYSTAL PUCKETT,
V.
PLAINTIFF,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
DEFENDANT.
**********
This matter is before the court upon cross-motions for summary judgment on
Crystal Puckett’s appeal from the Commissioner’s denial of her application for
Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”). The court will grant the Commissioner’s
motion, R. 12, and deny Puckett’s motion, R. 11, because substantial evidence
supports the administrative decision.
At the time of the alleged disability onset date, Puckett was a 34-year-old
female. AR 19. Prior to the alleged disability, Puckett obtained a GED. AR 13.
She has no past relevant work. AR 19. Puckett alleged disability beginning on
July 1, 2009, due to seizures, anxiety, sleep apnea, fallen bladder disorder, and
low attention span. AR 70. Puckett filed her claim for DIB on February 22, 2010.
AR 11. Her claim was denied initially on September 9, 2010, and upon
reconsideration on November 9, 2010. AR 82, 91. After a hearing on May 23,
2011, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Roger L. Reynolds determined that
Puckett was not under a disability within the meaning of the Social Security Act.
AR 20. Under the traditional five-step analysis, see Preslar v. Sec’y of Health and
Human Servs., 14 F.3d 1107, 1110 (6th Cir. 1994); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, the
ALJ determined that Puckett had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since
February 22, 2010, the application date, AR 13; that she had severe impairments
of morbid obesity, seizure disorder, obstructive sleep apnea, anxiety disorder,
personality disorder not otherwise specified, and polysubstance dependence
allegedly in remission, Id.; that her impairments or combination of impairments did
not meet or equal a listing in the Listing of Impairments, AR 14; and that Puckett
had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform both light and sedentary
work activities with the following restrictions: no work at heights or around
dangerous moving machinery or industrial hazards; no commercial driving; no
balancing; no climbing of ropes, ladders or scaffolds; occasional climbing of stairs
or ramps; and no exposure to concentrated dust, gases, smoke, fumes,
temperature extremes, or excess humidity. She requires entry-level work with no
frequent changes in work routines, no requirement for detailed or complex problemsolving, independent planning or the setting of goals; and she should work in an
object-oriented environment with only occasional and casual contact with coworkers, supervisors or the general public. AR 17-18. The ALJ relied on
testimony from a vocational expert (“VE”) to find that Puckett could perform the
requirements of light unskilled representative occupations that exist in significant
numbers in the national economy. AR 19-20. The ALJ thus denied Puckett’s claim
for DIB on June 6, 2011. AR 20. The Appeals Council denied Puckett’s request
for review on September 30, 2011. AR 1. Puckett challenges the ALJ’s ruling on
the grounds that the ALJ did not properly consider the opinion of her primary
treating physician, did not give adequate reasons for rejecting that opinion, and
erred in denying her claim based on a finding that she failed to follow prescribed
treatment.
The ALJ properly discredited the opinion of Dr. Dora Picon, Puckett’s primary
treating physician, because it was inconsistent with the doctor’s own previous
medical assessments of Puckett. A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling
weight if it is “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory
diagnostic techniques” and is “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence
in the case record.” Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir.
2004); see also 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(d)(2). However, if an ALJ gives good reasons
for doing so, he may reject the opinion of a treating physician when the opinion is
not sufficiently supported by the medical evidence in the record. Id.
In her February 2011 medical statement, Dr. Picon indicated that Puckett’s
compliance with treatment for generalized tonic-clonic seizures was “excellent.”
AR 384. A finding of “excellent” compliance contradicts Dr. Picon’s statements
from previous assessments. In August 2009, Dr. Picon first began treating
Puckett, prescribing her Keppra for her seizures. AR 330. In April 2010, Puckett
admitted that she stopped taking Keppra due to a pregnancy. AR 320. In her
assessment from March 2011, Dr. Picon stated that Puckett “got off meds on her
own.” AR 390. Thus, on two occasions, Puckett stopped taking medications
without permission from her doctor. This does not indicate “excellent” compliance
with treatment and contradicts Dr. Picon’s February 2011 medical statement. The
ALJ considered Puckett’s compliance with treatment only in consideration of Dr.
Picon’s credibility. AR 19. Puckett’s argument of her claim being denied due to a
failure of following prescribed treatment is without merit.
Dr. Picon’s statement that Puckett had several convulsive seizures a week,
AR 384, is also inconsistent with previous assessments. There was one reported
seizure between March and July 2010. AR 314. Puckett was seizure-free
between July and September 2010. AR 312. In March 2011, Dr. Picon stated
that Puckett “was doing quite well” and got off medication on her own, even
though she had a pseudo-seizure during the visit. AR 390. Saying Puckett “was
doing quite well” and off medication is inconsistent with a diagnosis of several
seizures a week. Due to the inconsistencies in her medical assessments regarding
the frequency of Puckett’s seizures and Puckett’s compliance with treatment, the
ALJ had good reason to discredit Dr. Picon’s opinion. Helm v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., 405 F.App’x 1001 (6th Cir. 2011).
The ALJ also properly found that Puckett’s seizures were insufficient to meet
the disability requirement for epilepsy under Listing 11.02. A claimant will be
found disabled if her impairment meets or equals a listed impairment. See 20
C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). In order to meet the disability requirement for epilepsy
under Listing 11.02, a patient must demonstrate convulsive epilepsy documented
by detailed description of a typical seizure pattern occurring more frequently than
once a month in spite of at least three months of prescribed treatment. Seizures
can consist of daytime episodes or nocturnal episodes manifesting residuals that
interfere significantly with daytime activity. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App.
1 § 11.02.
Dr. Picon’s February 2011 and June 2011 medical assessments state that
Puckett had several seizures a week, which would indicate compliance with the
requirements of Listing 11.02; however, Dr. Picon’s opinion did not have
controlling weight, as it was properly discredited. AR 390. Furthermore, an ALJ is
not bound by a physician’s conclusory statement. Cohen v. Sec’y of Dept. of
Health and Human Serv., 964 F.2d 528 (6th Cir. 1992). The final determination of
whether a claimant meets or equals the requirement of a listed impairment is
reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2012); SSR 96-5p,
61 Fed. Reg 34, 471, 1996 WL 374183, *1 (1996); Warner v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., 375 F.3d 387, 391 (6th Cir. 2004). Here, the medical assessments provide
substantial evidence in the record supporting the ALJ’s finding that Puckett did not
meet the requirements of Listing 11.02. Even though Puckett claimed to be having
nocturnal seizures in her February 2010 visit with Dr. Picon, this assessment failed
to indicate whether the residuals of the nocturnal seizures significantly interfered
with Puckett’s daytime activities. AR 324. The record also indicates that Puckett
was having seizures infrequently, not more than once a month. AR 390.
Based
on the medical assessments in the record, the ALJ was correct in determining that
Puckett’s disability did not meet the requirements of Listing 11.02.
Because Dr. Picon’s opinion was properly discredited and the ultimate
determination on whether a claimant’s disability meets listing requirement is
reserved to the Commissioner, the ALJ properly applied the relevant legal standards
and his decision is supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Puckett’s motion, R. 11, is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner’s motion, R. 12, is
GRANTED.
The court will enter a separate judgment.
Signed on December 28, 2012
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?