Catron v. SSA
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: It is ordered that the 7 Motion for Summary Judgment be OVERRULED and the 8 Motion for Summary Judgment be SUSTAINED. Judgment in favor of the Dft will be entered. Signed by Judge Henry R. Wilhoit, Jr on 3/21/2017.(SCD)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
Civil Action No. 15-322-HRW
SCARLET WICKER CATRON,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
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 her current application for disability insurance benefits on August 7, 2012,
alleging disability due to "fibromyalgia, depression, panic attacks, insomnia, swelling in right
leg, memory loss [and] dizziness" (Tr. 208). This application was denied initially and on
reconsideration. Thereafter, upon request by Plaintiff, an administrative hearing was conducted
by Administrative Law Judge Robert B. Bowling (hereinafter "ALJ"), wherein Plaintiff,
accompanied by counsel, testified. At the hearing, Tina Frederick, a vocational expett
(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: If the claimant is not performing substantial gainful work, his impaitment(s) must
be severe before he can be found to be disabled based upon the requirements in 20 C.F.R.
Step 3: If the claimant is not perfotming substantial gainful work and has a severe
impaitment (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 ifthe claimant's impainnent or impaitments 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
The ALJ issued a decision finding that Plaintiff was not disabled (Tr. 14-23). Plaintiff
was 54 years old at the time of the hearing decision. She has a high school education with an
additional two years of college. Her past relevant work experience consists of work as a
operations specialist for UPS.
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. 16).
The ALJ then determined, at Step 2, that Plaintiff suffers from fibromyalgia, degenerative
joint disease, tendinitis, rotator cuff tear in right shoulder, degenerative disease of cervical spine,
affective disorder and anxiety disorder, which he found to be "severe" within the meaning of the
Regulations (Tr. 16).
At Step 3, the ALJ found that Plaintiffs impairments did not meet or medically equal any
of the listed impairments (Tr. 17).
The ALJ further found that Plaintiff could not return to her past relevant work (Tr. 21)
but determined that she has the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform a range of light
work as follows: she can stand and walk only for six hours in an eight hour workday; sit only for
six hours in an eight hour workday; only occasionally push and pull with upper right extremity;
only occasionally reach overhead with upper right extremity; never climb ropes, ladders and
scaffolds; should avoid concentrated exposure to vibration and the use of moving machinery;
should only have occasional interaction with the general public, only occasional interaction with
co-workers and only occasional supervision (Tr. 18-21).
The ALJ finally concluded that these jobs exist in significant numbers in the national and
regional economies, as identified by the VE (Tr. 22).
Accordingly, the ALJ found Plaintiff not to be disabled at Step 5 of the sequential
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 and this matter is ripe for decision.
The essential issue on appeal to this Comt 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 383, 387 (6'h Cir. 1984). If the Commissioner's decision is supported by
substantial evidence, the reviewing Court must affitm. Kirk v. Secretmy ofHealth and Human
Services, 667 F.2d 524, 535 (6'h Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 957 (1983). "The court may
not tty the case de novo nor resolve conflicts in evidence, nor decide questions of credibility."
Bradley v. Secretmy ofHealth and Human Services, 862 F.2d 1224, 1228 (6'h Cir. 1988).
Finally, this Court must defer to the Commissioner's decision "even ifthere 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
Urging appeal, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ improperly discounted the opinion of her
treating physician, Jeffe1y McGinnis, M.D.
Dr. McGinnis has been Plaintiffs primaiy care provider for several years. In April 2012,
he noted that Plaintiff was not subject to joint, back, or muscle pain, and that she felt her
condition was improving (Tr. 332). In September 2012, Dr. McGinnis observed mild tenderness
in Plaintiffs cervical spine and in her trapezius muscles, as well as diffuse trigger points, but no
evidence of sensory or motor abnormalities (Tr. 659). That same month, an MRI of Plaintiffs
cervical spine provided an impression of "mild degenerative disc disease producing only minimal
canal stenosis and foraminal nan·owing" (Tr. 667).
Dr. McGinnis completed a Residual Functional Capacity Assessment in January 2014 and
assessed the following; standing and walking less than 2 hours in an 8 hour day; sitting less than
2 hours in an 8 hour day; occasionally lifting 10 pounds and frequently lifting 8 pounds; Dr.
McGinnis further assessed that Ms. Catron will be absent more than 4 days a month. (Tr. 577).
Dr. McGinnis completed an additional medical source statement in May 2014 providing a
similar opinion but that Plaintiff could only occasionally only use her hands and climb stairs; and
never bend, stoop, balance or climb ladders (Tr. 694).
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'h Cir. 1985)(citations omitted).
In the hearing decision, the ALJ discussed the records and opinion of Dr. McGinnis in
detail. He pointed out that his suggestion of disabling physical limitations were inconsistent with
his own treatment records which did not contain significant limitations with regard to Plaintiffs
functioning. The ALJ further noted that the diagnostic findings in the record were "largely
benign", showing degenerative disease in her right shoulder as well as tear in the rotator cuff but
that she retained a significant range of motion, strength and reflexes. The Comt notes that the
RFC clearly contemplates Plaintiffs right shoulder impairment.
The Court finds that the ALJ properly considered Dr. McGinnis' opinion. Contraty to
Plaintiffs argument, an ALJ is required to "assess a claimant's RFC based on all of the relevant
medical and other evidence." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). Thus, no medical source opinion is
alone conclusive on this issue. SSR 96-5p, 1996 WL 374183, at *2, 4-5 (stating that some issues,
such as RFC, are not medical issues regarding the nature and severity of an individual's
impairment(s) but instead administrative findings that are dispositive of a case, and thus are
reserved to the Commissioner).
With regard to Plaintiffs mental impairment, she argues that the ALJ should have
specifically mentioned Plaintiffs reporting of suicidal ideations in the summer of 2012.
However, Plaintiff herself testified that prior to the April 2014 administrative hearing she had
experienced suicidal ideations, but had discussed it with a psychiatrist and psychologist, who
helped her realize it was not something she needed to think about and she had not been treated
for it (Tr. 71). Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ did not properly consider her limitations in
concentration and "memo1y inadequacies." However, in June 2012, Dr. Fennell opined that
Plaintiffs memory was intact to recent and remote events (Tr. 390-392); in September 2012, Dr.
Merchant noted that Plaintiffs mem01y, concentration, and judgment appeared to be no1mal (Tr.
541-543); and in October 2012, psychologist Genthner noted that Plaintiffs memory was good
and she only had a mild limitation in attention and concentration skills (Tr. 373-379). Moreover,
the ALJ noted that he had carefully considered the total record before him in making his RFC
determination, including records from St. Claire Counseling as contained in the List of Exhibits
attached to the ALJ's August 2014 decision (Tr. 43-47). A review of the hearing decision
establishes that the ALJ did, in fact, consider Plaintiffs mental functioning.
Finally, Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ "never mentions or discussed the MRI of the
Lumbar Spine performed at Lexington Diagnostic Center on October 9, 2014." Plaintiffs
argument is without merit. The evidence that Plaintiff referenced is dated October 9, 2014 (Tr.
696), and the ALJ's decision was issued on August 12, 2014 (Tr. 33-47). Thus, the evidence was
not even before the ALJ. Fmther, the Appeals Council stated it "considered the reasons you
disagree with the decision and the additional evidence listed on the enclosed Order of Appeals
Council." (Tr. 2). The Order of Appeals Council specifically referenced the October 9, 2014 MRI
(Tr. 5). Moreover, the record associated with the October 2014 MRI at Lexington Diagnostic
Center reveals nothing that would have changed the ALJ's decision even if it had been before the
ALJ. The referenced MRI indicated that there was no central or foraminal stenosis at any level;
only mild degenerative facets at L3-4, and a disc bulge with a small central protrnsion at L4-5
While Plaintiff may have had limitations that negatively affected her ability to work, the
mere existence of impaitments such as those alleged by Plaintiff, is insufficient to establish
disability under the stringent standards of the Act. Instead, Plaintiff had to show that her
impairments caused functional limitations so severe that she was unable to engage in any
substantial gainful activity for a continuous period of at least 12 months. See Barnhart v. Walton,
535 U.S. 212, 220 (2002); 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(l)(A). The disability, not just the impairment,
must last 12 months. Walton, 535 U.S. at 220. Here, the evidence simply does not support
Plaintiffs claims of completely disabling limitations from her alleged disability onset date of
January 5, 2012, through the date of the Commissioner's final decision.
The Court finds that the ALJ'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 Summaiy Judgment be
SUSTAINED. A judgment in favor of the Defendant will be entered contemporaneously
51-ThisdL~ of March, JO 17
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?