Oram v. Astrue

Filing 18

OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie A Gallagher on 6/24/13. (mps, Deputy Clerk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHAMBERS OF
STEPHANIE A. GALLAGHER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

101 WEST LOMBARD STREET
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201
[phone]
Fax [phone]

June 24, 2013
LETTER TO COUNSEL:
RE:

Howard Avon Oram, Jr. v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration;
Civil No. SAG-12-2443

Dear Counsel:
On August 16, 2012, the Plaintiff, Howard Avon Oram, Jr., petitioned this Court to
review the Social Security Administration’s final decision to deny his claims for Supplemental
Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits. (ECF No. 1). I have considered the parties’
cross-motions for summary judgment, and Mr. Oram’s response to the Commissioner’s motion.
(ECF Nos. 14, 16, 17). I find that no hearing is necessary. Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2011).
This Court must uphold the decision of the agency if it is supported by substantial evidence and
if the agency employed proper legal standards. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3); see Craig v.
Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996). Under that standard, I will grant the Commissioner’s
motion and deny Plaintiff’s motion. This letter explains my rationale.
Mr. Oram filed his claim on January 20, 2010. (Tr. 130-41). He alleged that he became
disabled on March 13, 2008, but later amended that date to January 1, 2010. (Tr. 137, 30-31).
His claim was denied initially on January 26, 2010, and on reconsideration on May 26, 2011.
(Tr. 58-64, 66-69). A hearing was held on April 16, 2012 before an Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”). (Tr. 26-51). Following the hearing, on May 8, 2012, the ALJ determined that Mr.
Oram was not disabled. (Tr. 5-20). The Appeals Council denied Mr. Oram’s request for review
(Tr. 1-3), so the ALJ’s decision constitutes the final, reviewable decision of the agency.
The ALJ found that Mr. Oram suffered from several severe impairments, including
depression/bipolar disorder, anxiety, history of polysubstance abuse, history of chest wall
abnormality and obesity. (Tr. 10). Despite these impairments, the ALJ determined that Mr.
Oram retained the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to:
[P]erform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except he
is limited to work with simple, routine, repetitive tasks, and he requires a low
stress job defined as having only occasional decision making and occasional
changes in the work setting. Furthermore, he can have only occasional interaction
with the public, coworkers and supervisors.
(Tr. 14). After considering the testimony of a vocational expert (“VE”), the ALJ determined that
Mr. Oram can perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy, and that he
is therefore not disabled. (Tr. 19-20).

Howard Avon Oram, Jr. v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration;
Civil No. SAG-12-2443
June 24, 2013
Page 2
Mr. Oram presents two arguments on appeal. He contends that the ALJ failed to give
proper weight to Dr. Romanoski’s opinions and failed to consider Mr. Martin’s opinion. Each
argument lacks merit.
First, Mr. Oram argues that the ALJ improperly assigned little weight to the opinions of
Dr. Romanoski. A treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight if it is
inconsistent with the other substantial evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).
The ALJ provided several reasons for assigning little weight to Dr. Romanoski’s opinions. First,
the ALJ noted that Dr. Romanoski’s opinions were inconsistent with the psychiatric treatment
notes, which did not show any evidence of psychosis. (Tr. 12). The ALJ further noted that
mental status examinations were generally within normal limits despite Mr. Oram’s depressed
mood. Id. Third, the ALJ highlighted Dr. Romanoski’s opinion that Mr. Oram could not work
starting in March 2008, which was more than two years prior to Dr. Romanoski’s first
examination of Mr. Oram. (Tr. 17). Therefore, the ALJ found that Dr. Romanoski’s opinions
were based largely on Mr. Oram’s subjective complaints. (Tr. 18). The ALJ assigned little
weight to Mr. Oram’s complaints because Mr. Oram’s “own report of symptoms that are
inconsistently more severe than the claimant’s own reports to his therapist over the course of
many treatment sessions.” Id. The ALJ also noted that the therapist notes “document
generalized complaints of financial struggles causing anxiety, with no record of psychosis or side
effects from prescribed medications.” (Tr. 18).
Mr. Oram further argues that the ALJ failed to explain how the therapist’s notes were
inconsistent with Dr. Romanoski’s opinions. Pl. Mot. 9-10. However, the ALJ highlighted the
therapist’s statement that Mr. Oram’s “increased irritability may be due to psychosocial
stressors,” and may not be “illness related.” (Tr. 18, 405). In addition, the ALJ noted that Mr.
Oram complained of panic attacks lasting for one hour two times per week, and explained that
the “therapy treatment notes do not support that level of duration or frequency, and rather
indicate that his panic and anxiety are directly resulting from worry over finances and home
foreclosure.” (Tr. 18). To that end, the ALJ noted that Mr. Oram’s mood improved when he
heard that the hearing date for his claims was set. (Tr. 16). The ALJ also assigned great weight
to the opinions of Dr. Shapiro, who found that Mr. Oram would function best in “settings with
limited social contact, where he can perform simple tasks independently.” (Tr. 362). Critically,
Dr. Shapiro noted Mr. Oram’s participation in outpatient treatment, clearly indicating that he
reviewed and considered the records relating to that treatment. See id. Therefore, the ALJ
explained and supported her assignment of little weight to Dr. Romanoski’s opinions with
substantial evidence.
Mr. Oram next argues that the ALJ failed to properly consider the opinion of Peter
Martin, LCPC, Pl. Mot. 11, who found that Mr. Oram was disabled. (Tr. 364). As conceded by
Mr. Oram, Mr. Martin is not an acceptable medical source. More importantly, Mr. Oram
inexplicably argues that the ALJ failed to consider Mr. Martin’s opinion, despite the fact that this
opinion was co-signed by Dr. Romanoski, and was clearly discussed at great length by the ALJ.
(Tr. 17-18). As explained more thoroughly above, the ALJ fully explained her assignment of
little weight to Dr. Romanoski’s opinion, and this assignment is supported by substantial

Howard Avon Oram, Jr. v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration;
Civil No. SAG-12-2443
June 24, 2013
Page 3
evidence. Accordingly, the ALJ did not fail to properly consider Mr. Martin’s opinion.1
Lastly, Mr. Oram argues that the ALJ erred by stating that he suffered no side effects
from his medications. Mr. Oram highlights, and this Court finds, only one mention of daytime
fatigue as a side effect of his medications (Tr. 396).2 There is no indication that these side
effects persisted, or that they had any impact on his ability to work. In addition, Mr. Oram was
also asked about side effects at his hearing, and only stated that his hands shake at times. (Tr.
34). Therefore, the ALJ’s statement that Mr. Oram did not suffer side effects that impact his
ability to work is consistent with the record as a whole.
For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 14)
will be DENIED and the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 16) will be
GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
Despite the informal nature of this letter, it should be flagged as an opinion.
implementing Order follows.

An

Sincerely yours,
/s/
Stephanie A. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge

1

2

The ALJ also cited and discussed Mr. Martin’s treatment notes throughout her opinion.

There are also notes indicating that Mr. Oram’s sexual interest decreased as a result of taking Zoloft (Tr.
261), but this has no impact on his ability to work.