Combs v. SSA
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 11 ] be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. A separate judgment in conformity herewith shall this date be entered. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 02/16/2018.(KJA)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION at LONDON
JOYCE REGINA COMBS,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
V.
)
)
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
)
Commissioner of Social Security, )
)
Defendant.
)
Civil No. 6:17-cv-68-JMH
MEMORANDUM OPINION &
ORDER
****
Plaintiff Joyce Regina Combs brings this matter under 42
U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of an administrative
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. The Court, having
reviewed the record, will AFFIRM the Commissioner’s decision as it
is supported by substantial evidence.
I.
In
determining
disability,
an
(“ALJ”) uses a five step analysis.
Administrative
the
claimant
is
still
Judge
See Jones v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., 336 F.3d 469, 474 (6th Cir. 2003).
whether
Law
performing
Step One considers
substantial
gainful
activity; Step Two, whether any of the claimant’s impairments are
“severe”; Step Three, whether the impairments meet or equal a
listing in the Listing of Impairments; Step Four, whether the
claimant can still perform his past relevant work; and Step Five,
whether significant numbers of other jobs exist in the national
economy which the claimant can perform.
1
As to the last step, the
burden of proof shifts from the claimant to the Commissioner. Id.;
see also Preslar v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 14 F.3d 1107,
1110 (6th Cir. 1994).
II.
Plaintiff
filed
applications
for
Title
II
disability
insurance benefits (“DIB”) and Title XVI supplemental security
income (“SSI”) alleging disability as of November 1, 2011.
[TR
282-89]. Plaintiff’s claims were initially denied and denied again
on reconsideration.
[TR 150-52, 174-75, 176-97].
Plaintiff then
requested a hearing on the matter, which was held November 10,
2015.
[TR 101-33].
ALJ Don Paris held the hearing and issued a
written decision denying Plaintiff’s claims on January 22, 2016.
[TR 67-87].
The ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the
Commissioner when the Appeals Council denied review of the ALJ
ruling on January 25, 2017.
[TR 1-6]. This appeal followed
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Standing
Scheduling
Order,
the
Consistent with the Court’s
parties
have
submitted
motions for summary judgment, which are ripe for review.
cross
[DE 11,
13].
Combs was 41 years old when she filed for benefits and claimed
disability since November 2011 when she was 37 years old.
81].
Combs estimates her height and weight at 5’3 and 263 pounds.
[TR 107]
She obtained her GED and is able to read, write, and do
2
[TR
simple math.
[TR 108].
Plaintiff worked as a legal secretary for
more than three years and her most recent work was as a caseworker
at the Child Support Office.
[Id.].
She also previously worked
as a cashier and in various positions at restaurants.
[TR 109].
Plaintiff alleges she is unable to work due to a range of physical
impairments.
[TR 102].
At the hearing in front of the ALJ, Combs testified about her
medical history and conditions.
She alleges she suffers from
osteoarthritis, a joint effusion, bone spurs, diarrhea, COPD,
masses in her genitalia, Lichen Planus on her hands, feet, and
genitalia, nasal tumors, anxiety, and sharp pain in her back, legs,
and foot.
Combs
[TR 108-120].
testified
that
her
medical
ability to move for extended periods.
have trouble bending or squatting.
problems
[TR 117].
restrict
her
She claims to
She cannot walk for more than
a short time and has pain in her wrists.
[TR 117-18].
The pain
in her hands makes it difficult to hold anything when cooking and
cleaning.
[TR 128].
Combs also claims to sleep only four to five
hours per night, as she frequently has bowel movements.
[TR 120].
Plaintiff states that her bowel problems can cause her to use the
restroom up to twenty times per day, and sometimes she does not
even know when it occurs.
[TR 128-29].
She testified she keeps
a commode next to her bed. Combs has taken a variety of medicine
3
for pain, arthritis, anxiety, and depression; she also requires
oxygen to treat her COPD.
[TR 112-19].
As far back as 1986, Combs sought treatment at Mountain
Comprehensive Care (“MCC”) for a range of symptoms including a
cough, skin problems, headaches, shortness of breath, and back and
hip pain.
[TR 407-508].
In 2009, Combs was diagnosed with
degenerative disc disease and acute anxiety.
[TR 428, 432].
Plaintiff also went to MCC seeking treatment for a cough in August
2011 and was diagnosed with acute bronchitis with wheezing—shortly
before she allegedly became disabled.
[TR 410-12].
Her next
treatment came eleven months later, in July 2012, when visited
primary care provider Dr. Frank Mongiardo for sinus problems.
512-13].
[TR
Dr. Mongiardo told Combs she had a tumor in her sinuses.
Dr. Mongiardo later conducted a CT scan, which showed a mucus
retention cyst.
[TR 510].
breathing restriction.
A spirometry test indicated a mild
[TR 511]. Dr. Mongiardo diagnosed Combs
with chromic sinusitis, facial pain, dyspnea, and wheezing.
[TR
515].
By mid-2013, Combs started visiting Ace Clinique of Medicine
where she continued to go through 2015 for treatment of pain in
her shoulder, hip, back, neck, and abdominal, as well as heartburn.
[TR
533-59,
568-71,
574-79].
A
June
2013
MRI
showed
mild
osteoarthritis in both hips, minimal right-sided joint effusion,
4
and no evidence of avascular necrosis or any evidence of bursitis.
[TR 550].
An echocardiography report in August 2013 indicated a
small left ventricle with normal left ventricular function and
estimated ejection fraction of 50 to 60 percent, as well as some
diastolic dysfunction.
[TR 548-59].
Combs visited the Appalachian Orthopedic and Spine Center
twice in 2013 after experiencing back, leg, and hip pain.
593-99].
[TR
Her weight at that time was 285 pounds and she had a
body mass index (“BMI”) of 50.5 kg/m2.
[TR 596].
Her assessment
showed osteoarthritis of the right hip, trochanteric bursitis of
both hips, lumbar disc degeneration, and lumbar canal stenosis.
[TR 598].
Combs went to Ballard Wright, M.D. in July 2013 and
February 2014 complaining of low back pain and hip pain.
32].
[TR 526-
Dr. Wright found Combs suffering from degenerative spine
disease, lumbar facet arthropathy, sacroiliitis, osteoarthritis,
lumbar radiculopathy, chronic pain, and abdominal/pelvic pain.
[TR 526-27].
Plaintiff also sought treatment from George Caney,
M.D., in January and February 2014 for abdominal pain.
25].
[TR 521-
Plaintiff went back to MCC twice in 2015 for treatment of
shortness of breath and complications from COPD.
[TR 580-91].
During the June 2015 visit to MCC, doctors noted several problems
including
COPD,
syndrome (“IBS”).
obesity,
[TR 583].
hypertension,
irritable
bowel
And during the October 2015 visit,
5
and
Combs’s problems also included lichen planus and chronic diarrhea.
[TR 605-08].
Throughout her treatment, Combs received an array of imaging
and testing.
A right shoulder x-ray in April 2013 showed minimal
osteophyte formation at the level of the acromioclavicular joint,
minimal lumbar curvature convex, minimal right-sided SI joint
sclerosis, and minimal lumbar spondylosis.
[TR 556].
An MRI of
the right hip and pelvis in June 2013 indicated mild osteoarthritis
in both hips and minimal right-sided joint effusion.
[TR 550].
A
transvaginal pelvic ultrasound examination in April 2013 showed a
cyst near the left ovary and a uterine leiomyoma. [TR 551].
April 2013 chest x-ray showed no acute infiltration.
An
[TR 553].
An MRI of the lumbar spine in April 2013 found bulging discs and
osteophyte formation in two locations, a minimal bulging disc in
another spot, a complex cystic abnormality in the left hemipelvis,
and no disc herniation.
[TR 554-55].
showed mild obstructive sleep apnea.
A sleep study in April 2013
[TR 509].
A spirometry
report in May 2013 indicated mild restriction in airflow. [TR 519].
The record also includes medical source opinions from two
state agency doctors, Allen Dawson, M.D., and Jack Reed, M.D.
158, 182].
[TR
Dr. Dawson opined that Combs could (1) lift and carry
up twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently (2) stand
and walk for a total of six hours in a work day, (3) sit for a
6
total of about six hours, (4) occasionally climb ramps and stairs,
stop, kneel, or crouch, (5) frequently balance, and (6) never climb
ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, or crawl. [TR 158-59, 168].
Dr.
Dawson further suggested Combs avoid all exposure to hazards such
as machinery and heights.
[TR 159].
Dr. Reed agreed. [TR 182-
85].
After the hearing and considering all the evidence, ALJ Paris
issued his ruling on January 22, 2106.
[TR 67].
At Step One, ALJ
Paris found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since November 1, 2011.
[TR 72].
At Step Two, the ALJ
concluded that Plaintiff had the following severe impairments:
degenerative disc disease, osteoarthrosis, and obesity.
[Id.].
At Step Three, ALJ Paris determined that Plaintiff did not
have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or
medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in
20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.
[TR 73].
In reaching
this conclusion, ALJ Paris found that Plaintiff’s evidence of
chronic lower back pain with osteoarthrosis did not satisfy the
criteria of Listing 1.04 because the evidence “did not show that
Combs experienced a spinal disorder resulting in the compromise of
a nerve root or the spinal cord, with nerve root compression,
spinal
arachnoiditis,
ineffective ambulation.”
or
spinal
[TR 73].
7
stenosis
with
accompanying
The ALJ further found that
evidence
of
osteoarthrosis
in
Plaintiff’s
hips
and
lower
extremities did not satisfy Listing 1.02(A), which requires that
claimant be unable to ambulate effectively due to the impairment.
[Id.].
And
evidence
of
osteoarthrosis
in
Plaintiff’s
upper
extremities did not satisfy Listing 1.02(B), which requires that
one major peripheral joint in each upper extremity be impaired to
the point that a claimant no longer can perform fine and gross
movements with that extremity.
[Id.].
Finally, the ALJ noted
Plaintiff’s obesity, but found it did not “impose the degree of
limitation necessary to meet or equal any impairment described in
Appendix 1. SSR 02-p.”
[TR 73-74].
Before proceeding to Step Four, ALJ Paris found that Plaintiff
had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform light work
as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(c) and § 416.967(b) with the
following limitations:
The claimant can lift and carry twenty pounds
occasionally, and ten pounds frequently.
She can
stand/walk six hours, and sit six hours, out of an eighthour workday. She never should climb ropes, ladders or
scaffolds. She occasionally can climb ramps or stairs,
stoop, kneel, or crouch. She frequently can balance.
She never should crawl. She should avoid all industrial
hazards such as unprotected heights and dangerous
machinery.
[TR 74]
The ALJ then concluded, at Step Four, that Plaintiff was able
to perform past relevant work as a caseworker, a cashier, and a
8
secretary.
[TR 81].
The ALJ also found that other jobs in the
national economy are available that Combs could perform.
[TR 81-
82]. ALJ Paris based his conclusion on testimony from a vocational
expert (“VE”) in response to hypothetical questions assuming an
individual of Plaintiff’s age, education, work experience, and
RFC.
[TR 82].
The VE testified that such an individual could
fill a job with light exertion such as a bagger (3,000 jobs in
Kentucky
and
150,000
Kentucky/1,800,000
Kentucky/550,000
nationally),
nationally),
nationally).
assembly
or
work
(37,000
gatekeeper
Thus,
ALJ
Paris
(11,000
determined
Plaintiff was not disabled under the Social Security Act.
[Id.].
Plaintiff argues that ALJ Paris erred in three ways.
First,
Combs
contends
addressing
impairment.
that
RFC
the
despite
ALJ
failed
finding
that
to
consider
obesity
was
Second, Combs argues the ALJ should have
was a severe impairment.
[DE 11-1, p. 10].
obesity
a
in
severe
found IBS
Finally, Combs claims
that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence.
[DE 11-1, p. 13].
Because of each of these claims is without
merit, this Court affirms the Commissioner’s decision.
III.
When reviewing the ALJ’s ruling, this Court may not “’try the
case de novo, resolve conflicts in evidence, or decide questions
of credibility.’”
Ulman v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec, 693 F.3d 709, 713
9
(6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Bass v. McMahon, 499 F.3d 506, 509 (6th
Cir. 2007)).
This Court determines only whether the ALJ’s ruling
is supported by substantial evidence and was made pursuant to
proper legal standards.
Cutlip v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
25 F.3d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1994).
“Substantial evidence” is
defined as “more than a scintilla of evidence but less than a
preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
Id.
We are to
affirm the decision, provided it is supported by substantial
evidence, even if we might have decided the case differently.
See
Her v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 203 F.3d 388, 389-90 (6th Cir. 1999).
IV.
Plaintiff attacks three aspects of the of the ALJ’s decision.
This Court will address each, in turn.
A. Consideration of Obesity in Addressing RFC
In order to determine whether Plaintiff is able to perform
past relevant work, the ALJ must first “evaluat[e] the medial
evidence and the claimant’s testimony to form an assessment of
[her] residual functional capacity.”
Webb v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
368 F.3d 629, 633 (6th Cir. 2004) (internal quotations omitted).
The RFC assessment is a determination of how the claimant’s
“impairments, and any related symptoms, such as pain . . . cause
physical and mental limitations that affect what [he or she] can
10
do in a work setting.”
20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).
The RFC
assessment is “based on all of the relevant medical and other
evidence” in the case record, including “statements about what
[the claimant] can still do that have been provided by medical
sources,” as well as descriptions of the claimant’s limitations
that have been provided by the claimant and his or her family
members.
20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3).
“Social Security ruling 02-1p requires an ALJ to consider
obesity at steps two through five of the sequential evaluation
process used to determine if an individual is disabled.”
Miller
v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 811 F.3d 825, 834-35 (6th Cir. 2016)
(citing SSR 02-1p, 2002 WL 34686281, at *3 (Sept. 12, 2002)).
SSR
02-1p requires courts to consider obesity “at all stages of the
sequential evaluation,” although it does “not mandate a particular
mode of analysis.”
Nejat v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. 359 F. App’x 574,
577 (6th Cir. 2009).
Obesity must be considered at each stage,
including the RFC, “precisely because ‘the combined effects of
obesity with other impairments can be greater than the effects of
each of the impairments considered separately.’” Shilo v. Comm’r
of Soc. Sec., 600 F. App’x 956, 959 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting SSR
02-1p, 2002 WL 34686281, at *1).
“The ALJ satisfies this
requirement so long as she credits ‘RFCs from physicians who
explicitly accounted for [the claimant’s] obesity.’” Miller, 811
11
F.3d at 835 (quoting Coldiron v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 391 F. App’x
435,
443
(6th
“utiliz[es]
claimant’s
Cir.
the
2010)).
opinions”
obesity,
the
of
ALJ
In
other
physicians
words,
who
“incorporate[s]
the
ALJ
acknowledge
the
the
when
effect
that
obesity has on the claimant’s ability to work into the RFC he
constructed.”
Coldiron, 391 F. App’x at 443.
An ALJ “does not
need to make specific mention of obesity if he credits an expert’s
report that considers obesity.”
Bledsoe v. Barnhart, 165 F. App’x
408, 412 (6th Cir. 2006).
Here, Combs argues ALJ Paris failed to adequately address
obesity.
Combs argues that after ALJ Paris found obesity was a
severe impairment, he no longer mentioned obesity.
8].
[DE 11-1, p.
ALJ Paris wrote he had “given consideration to all the
forgoing factors during the sequential evaluation at Step 3, Step
4, Step 5, and has given consideration to Social Security Ruling
(SSR) 02-1p, which supersedes SSR 00-3p.
The Administrative Law
Judge finds the claimant’s obesity does not impose the degree of
limitation necessary to meet or equal any impairment described in
Appendix 1, SSR 02-p.”
[TR 73-74].
Combs argues that ALJ Paris
then failed “to mention obesity again in determining Ms. Combs’
RFC” despite the fact that the SSR 02-1p requires the ALJ to
consider obesity at each stage.
[DE 11-1, p. 9]. Combs notes that
the ALJ says he considered obesity at every stage, but Combs claims
12
that is “merely lip service.”
[Id. at p. 10].
Combs argues that
“just saying that the ALJ has considered her obesity at every stage
doesn’t give Ms. Combs her due process rights to meaningfully
litigate the issue.”
[Id.].
The ALJ properly considered obesity.
He references Combs’s
weight at least six times and her body mass index during the RFC
assessment.
[TR 75, 76, 77, 80].
which
the
ALJ
relied
In addition, the medical
opinions
on
all
considered
obesity.
See Coldiron, 391 F. App’x at 443.
Plaintiff’s
The medical source
opinions from Dr. Dawson and Dr. Reed on which the ALJ relied both
specifically included obesity.
[TR 159, 183, 194].
Combs cannot
point to any medical source that opined she was more limited as a
result of obesity than that what the ALJ described in the RFC.
Combs does not even argue that her obesity creates any limitations
that the ALJ did not address in his RFC assessment.
Indeed, Combs
has “failed to demonstrate how obesity interferes with her ability
to work beyond the limitations set forth in the RFC.”
Jordan v.
Astrue, No. 09-152-HRW, 2010 WL 227682, at *3 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 19,
2010); see also Caldwell v. Berryhill, No. 6:12-253-DCR, 2017 WL
957538, at *6 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 10, 2017).
The ALJ determined that despite Combs’s impairments—including
obesity—she maintained the ability to perform a range of light
work. Because the ALJ relied upon medical evidence that considered
13
Combs’s obesity and Combs cannot point to any limitation that
obesity imposes beyond what is described in the RFC, the Court
rejects Combs’s argument.
B. Irritable Bowel Syndrome as a Severe Impairment
Combs next argues that the ALJ erred at Step Two by failing
to find Combs’s diagnosis of IBS as a severe impairment.
1, p. 10].
[DE 11-
Step Two is a threshold requirement where the ALJ
determines whether the claimant has any ”severe” impairments.
20
C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 404.1520(c). If so, the ALJ proceeds
to Step Three.
severe
and
From there, the ALJ considers all impairments—both
non-severe—in
functional capacity.
determining
the
claimant’s
residual
20 C.F.R. § 1545(a)(2).
Here, the ALJ found Combs had three severe impairments:
degenerative disc disease, osteoarthrosis, and obesity.
Thus, ALJ Paris moved on to Step Three.
[TR 73].
[TR 72].
At that point,
it no longer mattered whether IBS was considered “severe” or not,
because the ALJ considers all impairments, even if they are not
severe.
Thus, “a finding that an impairment is not severe at Step
2 does not preclude the ALJ from considering it when fashioning
the RFC.”
Doan v. Astrue, No. 10-107-JBC, 2011 WL 3880488, at *2
(E.D. Ky. Aug. 31, 2011).
As such, once the ALJ proceeds beyond
Step Two, all impairments are taken into account, and “whether the
ALJ characterized any other alleged impairment as severe or not
14
severe is of little consequence.”
Pompa v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
73 F. App’x 801, 803 (6th Cir. 2003); see also Sharp v. Sullivan,
907 F.2d 151, No. 89-1982, 1990 WL 93397, at *4 (6th Cir. 1990);
Maziarz v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 837 F.2d 240, 244
(6th Cir. 1987); Lynn v. Colvin, No. 16-153-ART, 2016 WL 8943300,
at *3 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 22, 2016).
Thus, because the ALJ considers
all impairments, including those that are non-severe, Combs’s
argument that IBS should have been a severe impairment is not a
basis for reversing the ALJ’s decision.
C. ALJ’s Decision Supported by Substantial Evidence
Finally, Combs argues that the ALJ’s decision is not supported
by substantial evidence as required by 42 U.S.C. §405(g).
1, p. 13].
[DE 11-
“Substantial evidence means more than a scintilla.
It
means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.”
Maziarz, 837 F.2d at 243
(quoting Kirk v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs, 667 F.2d 524, 535
(6th Cir. 1981)) (internal quotations omitted).
“So long as the
ALJ’s decision adequately explains and justifies its determination
as a whole, it satisfies the necessary requirements to survive
[judicial] review.”
Norris v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 461 F. App’x
433, 440 (6th Cir. 2012).
Combs argues that the record shows that she can “not perform
a wide range of even sedentary work on a regular and sustained
15
basis.”
[DE 11-1, p. 13].
Combs lists her ailments and argues
“there is not substantial evidence to support the denial” of
benefits.
[DE 11-1 p. 14].
But there is nothing else Combs
offers. She simply thinks the ALJ is wrong. Combs makes no attempt
to point to specific errors in the ALJ’s decision.
She cites no
medical evidence and presents nothing to this Court that suggests
she is more limited than what the ALJ determined.
Plaintiff cites Howard v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 276 F.3d 235
(6th Cir. 2002) for the proposition that an ALJ’s decision to
consider only evidence unfavorable to a claimant is improper.
the first place, this is not what Howard addressed.
In
In Howard,
the Sixth Circuit reversed the ALJ because in determining the RFC
the
ALJ
did
not
consider
unrebutted
opinions
of
treating
physicians. Id. at 240. Such medical opinions, the Circuit ruled,
are entitled to complete deference.
not overlook them in the RFC.
Id.
As such, the ALJ could
Here, no such error occurred.
Indeed, as the ALJ noted, the record “contains no opinions from
treating
or
examining
physicians
indicating
the
claimant
is
disabled or has limitations greater than those determined in this
decision.”
[TR 80].
Second, nothing suggests the ALJ considered
only unfavorable evidence against Combs.
To the contrary, the ALJ
went through a thorough and detailed analysis of Combs’s entire
history.
16
Plaintiff finally cites Webb v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 368 F.3d
629 (6th Cir. 2004) in arguing “denial of benefits based upon an
ALJ’s improper calculation of the claimant’s residual functional
capacity, a description of what the claimant ‘can and cannot do,’
must be reversed.” Id. at 631.
True, but nothing in this case
suggests the ALJ improperly calculated Combs’s RFC.
The ALJ
considered all of Combs’s impairments and found she could perform
a range of light work.
[TR 74-80].
“As long as the ALJ cited substantial, legitimate evidence to
support his factual conclusions, we are not to second-guess.”
Ulman, 693 F.3d at 714.
This is true “[e]ven if the evidence could
also support another conclusion.”
Her, 203 F.3d at 389-90.
Here,
the ALJ relied on objective evidence in going through a detailed
evaluation of Combs’s medical history, treatment, and impairments
as well as the opinions of state agency medical consultants.
In
short, this Court “cannot conclude that the ALJ’s decision falls
below the ‘mere scintilla of evidence’ threshold against which we
must review the Commissioner’s decision.”
Norris, 433 F. App’x at
441.
V.
The Court having found no legal error on the part of the ALJ
and that his decision is supported by substantial evidence, the
Acting Commissioner’s final decision is AFFIRMED.
17
Accordingly,
IT
IS
ORDERED
that
Plaintiff’s
Motion
for
Summary Judgment [DE 11] be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
A separate judgment in conformity herewith shall this date be
entered.
This the 16th day of February, 2018.
18
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?