Bauer v. Astrue
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie A Gallagher on 9/10/13. (jnls, 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
(410) 962-7780
Fax (410) 962-1812
September 10, 2013
LETTER TO COUNSEL:
RE:
Jeffrey M. Bauer v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration;
Civil No. SAG-12-2713
Dear Counsel:
On September 11, 2012, the Plaintiff, Jeffrey M. Bauer, 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.
(ECF Nos. 10, 16). 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. Bauer filed his claim on July 14, 2009, originally alleging disability beginning on
May 1, 2007.1 (Tr. 119-22). His date last insured was September 30, 2007. (Tr. 11). His claim
was denied initially on November 19, 2009, and on reconsideration on March 12, 2010. (Tr. 5962, 63-64). A hearing was held on December 2, 2010 before an Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”). (Tr. 25-54). Following the hearing, on January 18, 2011, the ALJ determined that Mr.
Bauer was not disabled during the relevant time frame. (Tr. 8-24). The Appeals Council denied
Mr. Bauer’s request for review (Tr. 1-6), so the ALJ’s decision constitutes the final, reviewable
decision of the agency.
The ALJ found that through the date last insured, Mr. Bauer suffered from the severe
impairments of obesity, lumbar degenerative disc disease, status-post left hip surgery, and statuspost right knee surgery. (Tr. 13). Despite these impairments, the ALJ determined that Mr. Bauer
retained the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to “perform light work as defined in 20 CFR
404.1567(b) except no climbing of ropes, ladders, or scaffolds; and all other posturals are limited
to occasional.” (Tr. 15). After considering the testimony of a vocational expert (“VE”), the
ALJ determined that Mr. Bauer was able to perform his past relevant work as a consulting
engineer, and that he was not therefore disabled during the relevant time frame. (Tr. 19).
1
At the hearing, he amended his onset date to October 23, 2006, the date he had right knee surgery. (Tr.
11).
Jeffrey Bauer v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration;
Civil No. SAG-12-2713
September 10, 2013
Page 2
Mr. Bauer presents four primary arguments on appeal: (1) the ALJ erred in determining
his RFC; (2) the ALJ assigned inadequate weight to the opinions of his treating physicians; (3)
the ALJ failed to consider Mr. Bauer’s obesity; and (4) the ALJ failed to make adequate findings
regarding Mr. Bauer’s ability to perform his past relevant work. His arguments lack merit.
Mr. Bauer’s argument regarding his RFC contains several subparts. First, he contends
that the ALJ failed to provide a function by function narrative to support her conclusion. Pl.
Mot. 3-6. That boilerplate argument is unpersuasive. The ALJ provided a four-page narrative
discussion of the evidence supporting the RFC, including a summary of Mr. Bauer’s testimony, a
comprehensive review of the medical records both during and after the relevant time frame, an
evaluation of the medical opinion evidence, and a summary paragraph detailing support for the
determined RFC. (Tr. 15-19). Next, Mr. Bauer submits that the ALJ’s opinion lacked a medical
basis because the ALJ rejected all of the medical opinions. Pl. Mot. 6-7. While it is true that the
ALJ did not assign “significant weight” to any opinions, an ALJ is not required to do so, nor
must the ALJ parrot any particular medical opinion in determining an RFC. The ALJ did assign
“little weight,” not “no weight,” to the opinions of treating physicians Drs. McMahon and
Taragin, and to the opinions of the state agency medical consultants. (Tr. 17-19). Moreover, the
ALJ cited to medical evidence and records, not in opinion form, to support the RFC she
determined. See, e.g., (Tr. 19) (citing the medical evidence of improvement of symptoms
following surgeries, the pattern of ending treatment shortly after surgery, and discharges from
care). As a result, the argument that the RFC lacks any medical basis is unfounded. Finally, Mr.
Bauer contends that the RFC failed to recognize his right hip arthritis. Pl. Mot. 7. While Mr.
Bauer correctly notes that an X-ray in 2005 showed osteoarthritis in both hips, the recommended
treatment was only left hip replacement, and Mr. Bauer also underwent back and knee surgeries
to correct other issues. (Tr. 183-91, 205-07, 219-20). Mr. Bauer has not cited, and I have been
unable to find, any evidence suggesting that his right hip arthritis caused any functional
limitations other than those triggered by his other impairments, or particularly that problems with
his right hip affected his ability to stand or walk. As a result, I find no error in the ALJ’s
analysis.
Next, Mr. Bauer contests the assignment of weight to the opinions of his treating
physicians, Drs. McMahon and Taragin. Pl. Mot. 7-12. Although the opinion of a treating
physician can be entitled to controlling weight, such an opinion is not entitled to such weight if it
is inconsistent with the other substantial evidence of record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2),
416.927(c)(2). The ALJ provided extensive analysis of both doctors’ opinions. With respect to
Dr. McMahon, the ALJ noted that his opinion contradicted his own treatment records, which
documented successful left hip and right knee surgeries and no further treatment after April,
2007. (Tr. 18-19). With respect to Dr. Taragin, the evaluating neurologist, the ALJ noted that
the opinion appeared to be substantially based on Mr. Bauer’s subjective complaints and failed to
account for his continuing alcohol abuse. Id. In fact, the ALJ noted that Mr. Bauer had provided
false information to Dr. Taragin during his initial evaluation regarding his alcohol consumption.
(Tr. 15). Moreover, the ALJ noted that, in contrast to Dr. Taragin’s later opinion on disability,
records indicated that Mr. Bauer’s tremor was generally controlled with medication. (Tr. 15).
My role is not to reweigh the evidence or to substitute my own judgment for that of the ALJ, but
Jeffrey Bauer v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration;
Civil No. SAG-12-2713
September 10, 2013
Page 3
simply to adjudicate whether the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. See
Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). Under that standard, the assignments of
weight should be affirmed.
Mr. Bauer next contends that the ALJ erred in evaluating his obesity. Pl. Mot. 12-16. In
fact, it appears that in the relevant time frame prior to the date last insured, Mr. Bauer may not
have met the clinical definition of obesity. (Tr. 14) (noting that Mr. Bauer’s BMI was “just
under 30” in 2007). Regardless, the ALJ found obesity to be a medically determinable and
severe impairment in combination with Mr. Bauer’s back, hip, and knee impairments. Id.
However, Mr. Bauer has not cited, and I have not found, any evidence of record suggesting that
his obesity created functional limitations other than those caused by his other physical
impairments. The claimant carries the burden of showing how his obesity affected his ability to
perform work-related functions. See Pass v. Chater, 65 F.3d 1200, 1203 (4th Cir. 1995) (finding
that the applicant bears the burden of production and of proof during the first four steps of the
inquiry). Because Mr. Bauer has not identified how his obesity limited him to a greater extent
than the ALJ found, he has failed to carry his burden. See Brown v. Astrue, No. JKS–09–1792,
2011 WL 129006, at *2 (D. Md. Jan. 14, 2011) (“Having identified no evidence to suggest that
his obesity caused greater limitations than the ALJ assigned, Brown has shown no basis for
remand.”).
Finally, Mr. Bauer contends that the ALJ erred in determining that he was capable of his
past relevant work. Pl. Mot. 16-18. He contends that the ALJ made no findings of fact as to the
physical and mental demands of the past work as a consulting engineer, other than to find that it
was light in exertion. Pl. Mot. 17. Although the ALJ’s discussion in the opinion is relatively
cursory, any error is harmless because it is clear that the ALJ’s findings derived from the VE
testimony at the hearing in Mr. Bauer’s case. (Tr. 19-20). The ALJ made reference to that
testimony in the opinion. (Tr. 19). The VE testified that, based upon Mr. Bauer’s extensive
description of his work duties at the hearing, his work “would occasionally get into the medium
exertional category.” (Tr. 53). However, in response to a hypothetical question posted by the
VE, which tracked the additional limitations imposed in the RFC, the VE testified that a person
with Mr. Bauer’s restrictions as found by the ALJ would be able to perform the job of consulting
engineer “as defined by the DOT.”2 Id. In light of that testimony, which clearly constituted the
basis for the ALJ’s conclusion, there is no cause to remand the case on the past relevant work
determination.
For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 10)
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.
2
Although the hypothetical was based on a medium level of exertion with the additional climbing and
postural restrictions, the VE specifically clarified that the work, as defined by the DOT, was “at light.”
(Tr. 53). The fact that the ALJ found an RFC of light work therefore does not affect the VE’s testimony.
Jeffrey Bauer v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration;
Civil No. SAG-12-2713
September 10, 2013
Page 4
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
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?