Morris v. Astrue

Filing 14

LETTER OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie A Gallagher on 10/29/13. (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]

October 29, 2013
LETTER TO COUNSEL:
RE:

Gina Morris v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration;
Civil No. SAG-12-3729

Dear Counsel:
On December 20, 2012, the Plaintiff, Gina Morris, petitioned this Court to review the
Social Security Administration’s final decision to deny her claim for Disability Insurance
Benefits. (ECF No. 1). I have considered the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.
(ECF Nos. 11, 13). 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76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996) (superseded by statute on other grounds).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.
Ms. Morris filed her claim for benefits on May 8, 2009, alleging disability beginning on
June 18, 2007. (Tr. 170-73). Her claim was denied initially on October 23, 2009, and on
reconsideration on September 14, 2010. (Tr. 77-80, 74). A hearing was held on January 3, 2012
before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”).1 (Tr. 36-72). Following the hearing, on January
19, 2012, the ALJ determined that Ms. Morris was not disabled during the relevant time frame.
(Tr. 10-25). The Appeals Council denied Ms. Morris’s request for review, (Tr. 1-4), so the
ALJ’s decision constitutes the final, reviewable decision of the agency.
The ALJ found that Ms. Morris suffered from the severe impairments of status post
arteriovenous malformation (“AVM”) and depression. (Tr. 15). Despite these impairments, the
ALJ determined that Ms. Morris retained the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to:
perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) except that the claimant
should avoid pushing and pulling with her right leg and arm, and is limited to all
posturals occasionally but no climbing of a ladder, rope or scaffold, and is limited
to frequent handling, fingering and feeling with her right hand, with no limitations
on her left hand. The claimant is limited to simple unskilled work not at
production pace, defined as paid by the piece or on an assembly line, work that
1

 Although an earlier hearing was scheduled, the hearing was postponed due to a change in counsel for
Ms. Morris. (Tr. 27-35).

Gina Morris v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Civil No. SAG-12-3729
October 29, 2013
Page 2
involves low stress, defined as only occasional changes in the work setting and
only occasional contact with the general public.
(Tr. 17). After considering the testimony of a vocational expert (“VE”), the ALJ determined that
Ms. Morris could perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy, and
that she was therefore not disabled during the relevant time frame. (Tr. 24-25).
Ms. Morris presents two primary arguments on appeal: (1) that the ALJ erroneously
considered the opinions of various medical experts in assessing her RFC; and (2) that the ALJ
did not address her fatigue. Each argument lacks merit.
Ms. Morris suggests that two of the physicians, Dr. Hakkarinen and Dr. Huang, restricted
her ability to stand and walk to two hours or less, such that she would be capable of only
sedentary, not light, work. Pl. Mot. 6-7. Even assuming that the ALJ should have found either a
sedentary RFC or allowed for a sit-stand option at will, any error in determining an RFC of light
work would be harmless. The ALJ’s opinion expressly finds Ms. Morris capable of performing
not only light jobs, but several sedentary jobs identified by the VE. (Tr. 25). In addition, the VE
testified at the hearing that the addition of a sit-stand option at will would not change the
available jobs for Ms. Morris, because the cited jobs “are primarily performed in the seated
position.” (Tr. 70-71). Accordingly, remand is unwarranted.
Ms. Morris further contends that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the opinion of Dr.
Burlingame, a consultative examiner. Pl. Mot. 6. In fact, the ALJ repeatedly discussed the
contents of Dr. Burlingame’s report, including the conclusions reached. (Tr. 19, 21, 22-23).
While an ALJ is required to consider all of the evidence on record, the ALJ need not address
each finding by each physician in the written opinion. See Murphy v. Barnhart, 417 F. Supp. 2d
965, 970 (N.D. Ill. 2006); Brown ex rel. Brown v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 311 F. Supp. 2d 1151,
1160 (D. Kan. 2004) (both finding that while an ALJ must demonstrate she considered the entire
record, she need not discuss every piece of evidence). From the ALJ’s opinion, it is evident that
the ALJ considered and weighed Dr. Burlingame’s report. Moreover, the RFC limitation to
simple, unskilled, not production pace, low stress work addresses the memory and concentration
issues cited by Ms. Morris.
Ms. Morris also argues that the ALJ failed to assign sufficient weight to the opinion of
her treating physician, Dr. Huang. Pl. Mot. 6-7. Dr. Huang opined, in relevant part, that Ms.
Morris required three or more hours of rest per day and could not work eight hours per day on a
sustained basis. (Tr. 406-07). A treating physician's opinion is not entitled to controlling weight
if it is inconsistent with the other substantial evidence of record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2),
416.927(c)(2). In fact, if a doctor's own notes provide insufficient or contradictory support for
the doctor's conclusions, an ALJ may properly assign less than controlling weight. See Forsyth v.
Astrue, No. CBD-09-2776, 2011 WL 691581, at *4 (D. Md. Feb.18, 2011) (finding the ALJ
properly assigned less than controlling weight where, in relevant part, the physician's
conclusions were inconsistent with his own medical records); Cramer v. Astrue, Civil No. 9:10–
1872–SB–BM, 2011 WL 4055406, at *9 (D.S.C. Sept. 12, 2011) (upholding assignment of less

Gina Morris v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Civil No. SAG-12-3729
October 29, 2013
Page 3
than controlling weight to opinions “that were based in large part on the plaintiff's self-reported
symptoms rather than clinical evidence and that were not consistent with the doctor's own
treatment notes”); see generally 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (stating that “[t]he more a medical
source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical signs and
laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that opinion.”). Ms. Morris contends that Dr.
Huang had documented the worsening of her symptoms in August, 2011. Pl. Mot. 7. In fact,
however, as the ALJ noted, diagnostic imaging tests have showed that the AVM’s size has
remained stable, and physical therapy notes indicate improvement in her symptoms after August,
2011. (Tr. 22, 401, 426-39). In addition, the ALJ cited the discrepancy between Dr. Huang’s
opinions and her most recent treatment notes, indicating 4/5 strength in the right extremities,
normal muscle tone, and only a slight limp. (Tr. 22, 401). The ALJ therefore cited adequate
substantial evidence to support the assessment of Dr. Huang’s opinions.
Finally, Ms. Morris contends that the ALJ failed to address her complaints of extreme
fatigue. Pl. Mot. 7-8. However, the ALJ noted Ms. Morris’s testimony about fatigue, but found
her testimony to be partially not credible. (Tr. 20). Specifically, the ALJ noted that (1) Ms.
Morris’s testimony about the severity of her weakness was not corroborated by objective testing;
(2) the fact that Ms. Morris is not taking any medications indicates that her complaints are less
than credible; (3) Ms. Morris testified that she only applied for disability benefits under pressure
from her insurance company; and (4) despite complaints of disabling depression, Ms. Morris
demonstrates only mild symptoms and has never sought mental health treatment. (Tr. 20-21). In
light of the ALJ’s thorough credibility analysis, her evaluation of Ms. Morris’s self-reported
fatigue was 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. 13) 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