Richardson v. SSA

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Pla's 8 Motion for Summary Judgment is OVERRULED and Dft's 9 Motion for Summary Judgment is SUSTAINED. A Judgment in favor of the Dft will be entered contemporaneously herewith. Signed by Judge Henry R. Wilhoit, Jr on 05/27/2014. (KLB) cc: COR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

CENTRAL DIVISION

at LEXINGTON

Civil Action No. 13-96-HRW
CYNTHIA RICHARDSON,

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 disability
insurance 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 an application for on October 8, 2010, alleging disability
beginning on March 31, 2010, secondary to a motor vehicle accident, with
resultant neck and low back pain as well as depression (Tr. 213). This application
was denied initially and on reconsideration. On September 21, 2011, an

administrative hearing was conducted by Administrative Law Judge Roger
Reynolds (hereinafter "ALJ"), wherein Plaintiff, accompanied by counsel,
testified. At the hearing, Betty Hale, a vocational expert (hereinafter "VE"), also
testified.
At the hearing, pursuant to 20 C.F .R. § 416.920, the ALJ performed the
following five-step 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: If the 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.

2

On October 21,2011, the ALJ issued his decision finding that Plaintiff was
not disabled (Tr. 32-40).
Plaintiff was 41 years old at the time of the hearing decision (Tr. 34). She
attended college for three years (Tr. 34). Her application lists past relevant work
experience as a CNA, a temporary worker in an emergency room and a cashier at
Lowe's (Tr. 214). However, the ALJ described her work history as exiguous, with
no steady work after 2007 (Tr. 34).
At Step 1 of the sequential analysis, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not
engaged in substantial gainful activity from the alleged onset date of disability
through her date last insured, June 30, 2011 (Tr. 34).
The ALJ then determined, at Step 2, that Plaintiff suffers from chronic neck
and low back pain secondary to degenerative disc disease of the cervical and
lumbar spine with disc bulges at multiple levels, and pain and numbness of right
hand and arm, which he found to be "severe" within the meaning of the
Regulations (Tr. 34-35).
At Step 3, the ALJ found that Plaintiff's impairments did not, alone or in
combination, meet or medically equal any of the listed impairments (Tr. 36).
The ALJ further found that through the date last insured, Plaintiff was
unable to perform any past relevant work (Tr. 38-39) but determined that she has
3

the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform a limited range of light level
work (Tr. 37-38).
The ALJ finally concluded that these jobs exist in significant numbers in
the national and regional economies, as identified by the VE (Tr. 39-40).
Accordingly, the ALJ found Plaintiff not to be disabled at Step 5 of the
sequential evaluation process.
The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review and adopted the
ALJ's decision as the final decision of the Commissioner on March 7, 2013 (Tr.
18-23).
Plaintiff thereafter filed this civil action seeking a reversal of the
Commissioner's decision. Both parties have filed Motions for Summary Judgment
[Docket Nos. 8 and 9] and this matter is ripe for decision.
II. ANALYSIS
A.

Standard of Review

The essential issue on appeal to this Court is whether the ALJ's decision is
supported by substantial evidence. "Substantial evidence" is defined as "such
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
4

383, 387 (6 th 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 (6 th 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 (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 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 did not give appropriate weight to the opinion of Plaintiffs
treating physician, Scott Moore, M.D. and (2) the ALJ failed to consider whether
the combined effect of Plaintiff s impairments would be sufficient to render her
disabled.
C.

Analysis of Contentions on Appeal

Plaintiffs first claim of error is that the ALJ did not give appropriate weight
to the opinion of Plaintiffs treating physician, Scott Moore, M.D.
5

In order to be given controlling weight, the opinions of a treating source on
issues involving the nature and severity of a claimant's impairments must be well
supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,
and be consistent with other substantial evidence in the case record. 20 C.F .R. §
416.927(d)(2). The Court is mindful of the fact that the Commissioner is not
bound by a treating physician's opinion. Such opinions receive great weight only
if they are supported by sufficient medical data. Harris v. Heckler, 756 F.2d 431,
435 (6 th Cir. 1985)(citations omitted).
In a letter dated March 31, 2011, Dr. Moore opined that Plaintiff was unable
to lift or carry more than 10 pounds, sit, stand, or walk for more than 30 minutes at
a time or longer than four hours in a day, unable to reach overhead, handle, use
fingers, push or pull more than 30 minutes at a time, unable to use foot controls
more than 30 minutes at a time, unable to climb stairs, ladders, or scaffolds, unable
to stoop, kneel, crouch or crawl (Tr. 83). He further opined that Plaintiff suffered
from depression and anxiety because she was unable to do the things she
previously did and had chronic medical problems (Tr. 583).
Contrary to Plaintiffs assertion, the ALJ did not ignore Dr. Moore's
opinion. Indeed, the ALJ specifically discussed Dr. Moore's findings in his
decision (Tr. 37) and articulated the reason for not adopting it (Tr. 38). As the ALJ
6

noted, Dr. Moore's RFC assessment was inconsistent with other evidence in the
record. For example, William Brooks, M.D., a neurosurgical specialist, did not
regard Plaintiff as a candidate for surgical intervention and opined Plaintiff s
symptoms were consistent with severe musculoligamentous strain from which he
expected full recovery given sufficient time (Tr. 288). He estimated that that
Plaintiff s recovery may take six to nine months or perhaps longer but was
"confident that [Plaintifa would be okay" and he did not expect any long term
problems (Tr. 288). Dr. Brooks also suggested that Plaintiff was better treated with
physical therapy than chiropractic care (Tr. 288). He prescribed medication,
physical therapy, a home exercise program, and education (Tr. 288). This opinion
is a far cry from Dr. Moore's suggestion of disability.
Nor did another treating source agree with Dr. Moore's conclusion. Dr.
Oliver James did not find that Plaintiff had severe work-related limitations or was
disabled or completely unable to work (Tr. 577-82, 605-08). He merely noted that
Plaintiff had an antalgic gait (Tr. 577).
Although Dr. Moore opined Plaintiff was unable to reach overhead, handle,
use fingers, push or pull more than 30 minutes at a time (Tr. 583), electro
diagnostic evidence revealed mild sensory ulnar neuropathy and no electro
diagnostic evidence of a right cervical radiculopathy in the right wrist and arm (Tr.
7

688). Most of Plaintiffs median motor studies, ulnar motor studies, and sensory
studies were essentially normal (Tr. 687). Plaintiffs EMG findings contradicted
Dr. Moore's opinion that Plaintiff was unable to reach overhead, handle, use
fingers, push or pull more than 30 minutes at a time (Tr. 583). See 20 C.P.R. §
404.1527(c)(4) ("generally, the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a
whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion") and § 404.1527(c)(3) ("The
more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion,
particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give
that opinion.").
Plaintiff appears to argue the ALJ was required to accept Dr. Moore's
opinion because his opinion was the only opinion by an examining source that
identified Plaintiffs work limitations. However, the responsibility for assessing a
claimant's RFC at the hearing level rests with the ALJ, not a physician. See 20
C.P.R. § 404.1546 (c).
In this case, the ALJ properly considered the relevant evidence, including
the opinions of record, in assessing Plaintiffs RFC. Given the record as a whole,
substantial evidence supports the ALJ's assessment of Plaintiffs RFC and the
ALJ's decision to give little weight to Dr. Moore's opinion (Tr. 38).
Plaintiffs second claim of error is that the ALJ failed to consider whether
8

the combined effect of Plaintiffs impairments would be sufficient to render her
disabled.
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. 36). 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 Plaintiff s argument in this regard is
without merit.

III. CONCLUSION
The Court finds that the ALl's decision is supported by substantial evidence
9

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 SUSTAINED. A judgment in favor of the Defendant
will be entered contemporaneously herewith.
This 27th day of May, 2014.

10