Wheeler V. Astrue

Filing 18

OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie A Gallagher on 7/1/13. (apls, 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]

July 1, 2013
LETTER TO COUNSEL:
RE:

Charles William Wheeler v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration;
Civil No. SAG-12-2539

Dear Counsel:
On August 24, 2012, the Plaintiff, Charles William Wheeler, petitioned this Court to
review the Social Security Administration’s final decision to deny his claim for Disability
Insurance Benefits. (ECF No. 1). I have considered the parties’ cross-motions for summary
judgment, and Mr. Wheeler’s response to the Commissioner’s motion. (ECF Nos. 11, 15, 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. Wheeler filed his claim on May 11, 2009. (Tr. 146-54). He alleged that he became
disabled on December 10, 2008. (Tr. 162). His claim was denied initially on August 10, 2009,
and on reconsideration on February 3, 2010. (Tr. 85-88, 94-95). A hearing was held on
December 8, 2010 before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (Tr. 31-82). Following the
hearing, on December 23, 2010, the ALJ determined that Mr. Wheeler was not disabled. (Tr. 1530). The Appeals Council denied Mr. Wheeler’s request for review (Tr. 1-5), so the ALJ’s
decision constitutes the final, reviewable decision of the agency.
The ALJ found that Mr. Wheeler suffered from several severe impairments, including
bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, and alcohol dependence in recent remission. (Tr. 20). Despite
these impairments, the ALJ determined that Mr. Wheeler retained the residual functional
capacity (“RFC”) to:
[P]erform a full range of work at all exertional levels but with the following
nonexertional limitations: carrying out simple tasks in 2-hour increments; having
occasional interaction with coworkers and supervisors, and no direct interaction
with the general public (except incidental interaction); and adapting to simple
changes in a routine work setting.
(Tr. 22). After considering the testimony of a vocational expert (“VE”), the ALJ determined that
Mr. Wheeler can perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy, and that
he is therefore not disabled. (Tr. 25).

Charles William Wheeler v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration;
Civil No. SAG-12-2539
July 1, 2013
Page 2
Mr. Wheeler presents three arguments on appeal. First, he contends that the ALJ failed
to give proper weight to Dr. Khan and Dr. Schemm’s opinions. Mr. Wheeler further argues that
the ALJ failed to properly assess Mr. Wheeler’s credibility. Each argument lacks merit.
First, Mr. Wheeler argues that the ALJ improperly assigned little weight to the opinions
of Dr. Khan. 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 assigned “little weight” to Dr. Khan’s opinions. (Tr. 24). This assignment of weight
was not erroneous.
Dr. Khan opined that Mr. Wheeler’s ability to relate to coworkers, deal with the public,
and deal with work stressors was “poor.” (Tr. 318). Dr. Khan also opined that Mr. Wheeler
cannot be expected to relate predictably in social situations or understand complex instructions
(Tr. 319), that he would miss work more than three times a month, and that he would not be able
to work forty hours a week. (Tr. 219, 220). The ALJ assigned little weight to those opinions
because Dr. Khan’s treatment notes indicate that Mr. Wheeler’s symptoms improved with
treatment. (Tr. 23). The ALJ also found that Dr. Khan’s opinions were not supported by the
record, “including [Dr. Khan’s] own treating notes which typically showed normal mental status
examination findings.” (Tr. 24). This finding is supported by substantial evidence. Dr. Khan
consistently rated Mr. Wheeler’s GAF score at 55, indicating only moderate limitations. (Tr.
269, 288, 294, 326, 357). Dr. Khan’s notes also consistently indicate that upon examination, Mr.
Wheeler is alert, his appearance and behavior are appropriate, his speech has normal clarity, rate,
and volume, his thought process is goal directed, and his thought content is normal. (Tr. 275-85,
356, 366, 368, 372). Dr. Khan’s reports also largely find that Mr. Wheeler’s mood is stable.
Moreover, as the ALJ noted, the state agency physician Dr. Suansilppongse also made findings
that aligned with the ALJ’s determinations and contradicted Dr. Khan’s. (Tr. 24, 335-48).
Therefore, the ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence.1
Mr. Wheeler next argues that the ALJ failed to properly consider the opinion of Michael
Schemm, LCPC pursuant to SSR-06-3p. Pl. Mot. 19-20. That ruling states that the ALJ should
consider evidence from licensed clinical social workers, even if they are not “acceptable medical
sources.” It also states that opinions from a source that is not deemed an “acceptable medical
source” may outweigh an opinion from an acceptable medical source. Here, the ALJ stated that
“Mr. Schemm’s opinion is not entitled to the weight of a medical opinion because he is not an
acceptable medical source.” (Tr. 24). Mr. Wheeler argues that this statement equates to a failure
by the ALJ to comply with SSR 06-3p. However, the ALJ did consider Mr. Schemm’s evidence,
but assigned “diminished weight” to his opinion because it was “somewhat internally
inconsistent . . . and not consistent with the record evidence as a whole.” (Tr. 24). More
specifically, Mr. Schemm opined that Mr. Wheeler suffered marked difficulties in the areas of
social functioning and concentration, but that his ability to understand and follow simple
1

Mr. Wheeler also argues that Dr. Khan’s opinions are sufficient to establish the elements of Listing
12.04. Because the ALJ properly assigned little weight to Dr. Khan’s opinions, this argument also fails.

Charles William Wheeler v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration;
Civil No. SAG-12-2539
July 1, 2013
Page 3
instructions, maintain personal appearance, and function independently was “good,” and that his
ability to concentrate and follow work rules was “fair.” (Tr. 376-78). Accordingly, the ALJ did
not err by assigning little weight to Mr. Schemm’s opinion.
Lastly, Mr. Wheeler contests the ALJ’s credibility analysis. The Fourth Circuit has
developed a two-part test for evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints. Chater, 76 F.3d at
594. First, there must be objective medical evidence of a medical impairment reasonably likely
to cause the symptoms alleged by the claimant. Id. After the claimant meets this threshold
obligation, the ALJ must evaluate “the intensity and persistence of the claimant's [symptoms],
and the extent to which it affects [his] ability to work.” Id. at 595. The ALJ followed that
process in this case. She determined that Mr. Wheeler’s “medically determinable impairment
could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms.” (Tr. 23). However, she did not
find Mr. Wheeler’s testimony as to the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his
symptoms to be entirely credible. Id.
The ALJ discussed Mr. Wheeler’s testimony that his main problem was anger, but that he
had not started anger management classes, he was personable at the hearing, and was friendly
and polite during his interview with a claims representative. (Tr. 22). The ALJ’s suggestion of
anger management to Mr. Wheeler at the hearing does not belie her adverse credibility finding.
In fact, the ALJ credited Mr. Wheeler’s allegations of difficulty with anger by limiting Mr.
Wheeler’s RFC to “occasional interaction with coworkers and supervisors, and no direct
interaction with the general public.” Id. The ALJ discussed Dr. Khan’s reports, which largely
indicated that Mr. Wheeler’s mood is stable. Furthermore, the ALJ considered the opinions of
Dr. Khan and Mr. Schemm, which discuss Mr. Wheeler’s subjective complaints, and assigned
little weight to those opinions. Therefore, the ALJ’s adverse credibility finding is supported by
substantial evidence.
For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 11)
will be DENIED and the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 15) 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.

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

An