Johnson v. Colvin
Filing
24
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie A Gallagher on 12/26/13. (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
(410) 962-7780
Fax (410) 962-1812
December 26, 2013
LETTER TO COUNSEL:
RE:
Christina Angela Johnson v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration;
Civil No. SAG-12-3804
Dear Counsel:
On December 28, 2012, the Plaintiff, Christina Angela Johnson, petitioned this Court to
review the Social Security Administration’s final decision to deny her claims for Supplemental
Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits. (ECF No. 1). I have considered the parties’
cross-motions for summary judgment, and the plaintiff’s response. (ECF Nos. 14, 22, 23). 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(4th Cir. 1996) (superseded by statute on other grounds).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. Johnson filed her claim for benefits on May 31, 2011, alleging disability beginning
on January 1, 2010. (Tr. 22). Her claim was denied initially on September 20, 2011, and on
reconsideration in November, 2011. (Tr. 124-28, 130-33). A hearing was held on June 5, 2012
before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (Tr. 38-79). Following the hearing, on July 27,
2012, the ALJ determined that Ms. Johnson was not disabled during the relevant time frame.
(Tr. 19-37). The Appeals Council denied Ms. Johnson’s request for review, (Tr. 1-6), so the
ALJ’s decision constitutes the final, reviewable decision of the agency.
The ALJ found that Ms. Johnson suffered from the severe impairments of asthma,
obesity, bipolar disorder, and anxiety disorder. (Tr. 24). Despite these impairments, the ALJ
determined that Ms. Johnson retained the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to:
perform medium work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(c) and 416.967(c) except
that she must avoid concentrated exposure to respiratory irritants. She can carry
out simple tasks in 2 hour increments (which can be accompanied by regularly
scheduled breaks); have occasional interaction with coworkers and supervisors
but must avoid direct[] interaction with the general public; and adapt to simple
changes in a routine setting.
Christina Angela Johnson v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Civil No. SAG-12-3804
December 26, 2013
Page 2
(Tr. 27). After considering the testimony of a vocational expert (“VE”), the ALJ determined that
Ms. Johnson could perform both her past relevant work as a warehouse picker and house cleaner
and other jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy, and that she was
therefore not disabled during the relevant time frame. (Tr. 30-32).
Ms. Johnson presents two primary arguments on appeal: (1) that the ALJ erred in failing
to properly consider all of her impairments at Step Two; and (2) that the ALJ assigned
inadequate weight to the opinions of two treating sources. Each argument lacks merit.
First, Ms. Johnson challenges the ALJ’s determination that her back and neck pain were
not severe, and argues that the ALJ should have assessed whether fibromyalgia is a severe
impairment. Pl. Mot. 8. First, with respect to fibromyalgia, the diagnosis appears in a single
note from Dr. Linda Freilich on May 8, 2012. (Tr. 413). The notes from that appointment with
Dr. Freilich do not indicate the reasons for the new fibromyalgia diagnosis, and do not indicate
that Ms. Johnson was suffering any additional functional limitations. Id. In fact, the notes
reflect only that she is “still having neck and back pain.” Id. The mere diagnosis of
fibromyalgia does not render it a severe impairment, in the absence of any indication that the
fibromyalgia limits Ms. Johnson’s ability to perform work.1
Turning to neck and back pain, the ALJ expressly addressed “the claimant’s alleged
arthritis in neck” during her Step Two analysis. (Tr. 25). The ALJ noted that despite Ms.
Johnson’s complaints of neck pain beginning in September, 2011, objective testing such as an Xray and CT scan had not revealed evidence of injury. Id. The ALJ therefore found the “alleged
arthritis in neck” to be a “non-medically determinable impairment.” Id. Although there is
evidence in the record both substantiating the back and neck pain and corroborating the ALJ’s
assessment,2 I am not permitted to reweigh the evidence so long as the ALJ has supported her
analysis with substantial evidence, as she has here. Moreover, even if I were to agree that the
ALJ erred in her evaluation of Ms. Johnson’s neck and back pain at Step Two, such error would
be harmless. Ms. Johnson made the threshold showing of other severe impairments, and the ALJ
correctly continued the sequential evaluation and considered the combined impact of her
1
Moreover, SSR 12-2p provides agency guidance on the evaluation of fibromyalgia and forbids reliance
upon a “physician’s diagnosis alone.” SSR 12-2p, 2012 WL 3104869 (July 25, 2012). It directs ALJs to
evaluate a purported fibromyalgia diagnosis on the basis of tender points criteria, or, alternatively, on the
basis of the 2010 American College of Rheumatology Preliminary Diagnostic Criteria, which require,
inter alia, a history of widespread pain in all quadrants of the body; “[r]epeated manifestations of six or
more [fibromyalgia] symptoms . . . especially fatigue, cognitive or memory problems (“fibro fog”),
waking unrefreshed, depression, anxiety disorder, or irritable bowel syndrome;” and evidence that other
potential disorders have been excluded. There is no indication in Dr. Freilich’s notes, or elsewhere in the
medical record, that Ms. Johnson underwent diagnostic testing such as the tender points test or tests to
rule out other disorders, or displayed such a breadth of concurrent symptoms.
2
For example, while there are several reports addressing Ms. Johnson’s neck pain, there are also reports
from late 2011 and early 2012 suggesting that Ms. Johnson was not suffering neck pain and had normal
motion in her neck. (Tr. 380, 385).
Christina Angela Johnson v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Civil No. SAG-12-3804
December 26, 2013
Page 3
impairments, both severe and non-severe, on her ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1523; (Tr.
28) (acknowledging, as part of the RFC analysis, Ms. Johnson’s continued reports of neck pain
and muscle spasms, but noting normal objective testing and the failure to pursue recommended
evaluation with a rheumatologist). Therefore, remand is not required to address the ALJ's Step
Two findings.
Ms. Johnson also contests the assignments of weight to two of her treating sources, Dr.
Quintero-Howard and a licensed clinical professional counselor (LCPC), Taryn Grey. Pl. Mot.
11-14. Dr. Quintero-Howard served as Ms. Johnson’s treating psychiatrist. Despite her mental
health specialty, her opinion included extreme physical restrictions regarding Ms. Johnson’s
ability to sit, stand and walk, and lift and carry that were not corroborated by treatment notes
from Ms. Johnson’s physical doctors. (Tr. 371). A treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to
controlling 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). 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, No. 9:10–1872–SB–BM, 2011 WL 4055406, at *9 (D.S.C. Sept. 12, 2011) (upholding
assignment of less 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.”). The ALJ noted that
in May, 2011, Dr. Quintero-Howard assigned Ms. Johnson a GAF score of 55, which reflects
only moderate functional limitations, and noted Ms. Johnson’s report that she was “doing good”
on medication. (Tr. 29-30, 443, 448). However, Dr. Quintero-Howard opined that Ms. Johnson
had extreme limitations of social functioning. (Tr. 30, 372). In light of the inconsistencies with
Dr. Quintero-Howard’s own treatment notes and with the medical records from other sources,
the ALJ’s assignment of “little weight” to Dr. Quintero-Howard’s opinion is supported by
substantial evidence.
In addition, while the ALJ made an inconsistent statement about whether the opinion of
Ms. Grey, the LCPC, was entitled to any weight, the ALJ correctly noted that Ms. Grey is not an
acceptable medical source, pursuant to 20 C.F.R §§ 404.1513(a), (d) and 416.913(a), (d). Id. As
a result, her opinion was not entitled to controlling weight. The ALJ in fact assigned Ms. Grey’s
opinion “little weight because it is not supported by the record evidence as a whole as discussed
herein.” (Tr. 30). Specifically, the ALJ noted that Ms. Grey had treated Ms. Johnson for a
relatively short time, and assessed a lower GAF score than Dr. Quintero-Howard, who treated
Ms. Johnson for a longer period and is an accepted medical source. Id.
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. 22) will be
GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
Christina Angela Johnson v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Civil No. SAG-12-3804
December 26, 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?