Lakitsky v. Astrue

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie A Gallagher on 6/11/13. (dass, 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 11, 2013
LETTER TO COUNSEL:

RE:

Edward Lakitsky v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration;
Civil No. SAG-12-2483

Dear Counsel:
On August 20, 2012, the Plaintiff, Edward Lakitsky, petitioned this Court to review the
Social Security Administration’s final decision to deny his claim for Supplemental Security
Income. (ECF No. 1). I have considered the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.
(ECF Nos. 14, 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76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996) (superseded by statute on other grounds). Under that standard, I
will grant the Commissioner’s motion and deny Plaintiff’s motion. This letter explains my
rationale.
Mr. Lakitsky filed his claim for benefits on January 26, 2009, alleging disability
beginning on April 29, 2007. (Tr. 147-50). His claim was denied initially on March 19, 2009,
and on reconsideration on October 8, 2009. (Tr. 115-18, 124-25). A hearing was held on
September 15, 2010 before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (Tr. 70-108). Following the
hearing, on December 16, 2010, the ALJ determined that Mr. Lakitsky was not disabled during
the relevant time frame. (Tr. 11-25). The Appeals Council denied Mr. Lakitsky’s request for
review (Tr. 1-6), so the ALJ’s decision constitutes the final, reviewable decision of the agency.
The ALJ found that Mr. Lakitsky suffered from the severe impairment of bipolar
disorder. (Tr. 16). Despite this impairment, the ALJ determined that Mr. Lakitsky retained the
residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to:
[P]erform a full range of work at all exertional levels but with the following
nonexertional limitations: the claimant is limited to routine, repetitive, unskilled
tasks within a basic routine.
(Tr. 17). After considering the testimony of a vocational expert (“VE”), the ALJ determined that
Mr. Lakitsky could perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy, and
that he was therefore not disabled during the relevant time frame. (Tr. 20).

Edward Lakitsky v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Civil No. SAG-12-2483
June 11, 2013
Page 2

Mr. Lakitsky presents two arguments on appeal: (1) that the ALJ erroneously analyzed
the opinion of consultative examiner Dr. Brooks; and (2) that the ALJ erroneously assessed the
opinion of his treating psychiatrist, Dr. Rosinsky. Both arguments lack merit.
Mr. Lakitsky contends that the ALJ failed to evaluate appropriately the report of Dr.
Brooks. Pl. Mot. 6-9. In particular, Mr. Lakitsky cites the portion of the report where Dr.
Brooks opined that Mr. Lakitsky “has chronic pain from his right knee and foot that would limit
him, physically, but can probably be treated with surgery or more vigorous medical regimen. He
is, fortunately, able to . . . carry, lift, and manipulate light objects.” (Tr. 319). Mr. Lakitsky
argues that this portion of Dr. Brooks’s report undermines the ALJ’s conclusion that he is
capable of medium (or even heavy) work. I disagree. It is clear from the ALJ’s decision that he
evaluated that portion of Dr. Brooks’s report, because he paraphrased it in determining that Mr.
Lakitsky’s knee and foot pain did not constitute severe impairments. (Tr. 16). In fact, the ALJ
concluded that the impairments “cause no limitation in the claimant’s functioning.” Id. In
support of that conclusion, the ALJ cited the fact that the “records show no consistent treatment
for any physical condition that would prevent the claimant from working.” Id. Later in the
analysis, the ALJ also cites the fact that Mr. Lakitsky is capable of building a deck, renovating a
home, and engaging in other home improvement jobs, including installing windows. (Tr. 19).
Dr. Brooks’s opinion is not properly read to suggest that Mr. Lakitsky would only be capable of
sedentary or light work. Moreover, even if Dr. Brooks had rendered that opinion, the ALJ cited
to substantial evidence to support his RFC conclusion that Mr. Lakitsky is physically capable of
greater levels of exertion.
With respect to Dr. Rosinsky, Mr. Lakitsky argues that the ALJ did not address the GAF
scores Dr. Rosinsky assigned, which ranged from 50 to 60 over the period of treatment. Pl. Mot.
9-11. However, GAF scores do not govern an ALJ's analysis. “[A] GAF score is not
determinative of whether a person is disabled. Rather, the Social Security Administration does
not endorse the use of the GAF in Social Security and SSI disability programs, and it does not
directly correlate to the severity requirements in the mental disorders listings.” Melgarejo v.
Astrue, No. JKS 08–3140, 2009 WL 5030706, at *2 (D. Md. Dec. 15, 2009) (citing Revised
Medical Criteria for Evaluating Mental Disorders and Traumatic Brain Injury, 65 Fed. Reg.
50746, 50764–65 (Aug. 21, 2000)). The ALJ's failure to evaluate Dr. Rosinsky's assigned GAF
scores therefore does not warrant remand. The ALJ in fact assigned great weight to Dr.
Rosinsky’s treatment records, which “indicate the claimant has no cognitive deficits, has stable
mood and has been able to work and attend college.” (Tr. 19). A review of the treatment records
reveals no error.
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. 17) will be
GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.

Edward Lakitsky v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Civil No. SAG-12-2483
June 11, 2013
Page 3

Despite the informal nature of this letter, it should be flagged as an opinion.
implementing Order follows.
Sincerely yours,
/s/
Stephanie A. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge

An