Cornwell v. Colvin
Filing
20
LETTER OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie A Gallagher on 2/12/14 (cags, 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
February 12, 2014
LETTER TO COUNSEL:
RE:
Lisa Minette Cornwell v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration;
Civil No. SAG-13-1211
Dear Counsel:
On April 24, 2013, the Plaintiff, Lisa Minette Cornwell, petitioned this Court to review
the Social Security Administration’s final decision to deny her claim for Supplemental Security
Income. (ECF No. 1). I have considered the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.
(ECF Nos. 17, 19). 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76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996) (superseded by statute on other grounds).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. Cornwell filed her claim for benefits on August 11, 2009, alleging disability
beginning on July 1, 2009. (Tr. 169-75). Her claim was denied initially on March 9, 2010, and
upon reconsideration on November 18, 2010. (Tr. 66-69, 72-73). A hearing was held on
September 20, 2011 before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (Tr. 28-63). Following the
hearing, the ALJ determined that Ms. Cornwell was not disabled during the relevant time frame.
(Tr. 9-27). The Appeals Council denied Ms. Cornwell’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. Cornwell suffered from the severe impairments of fractures due
to a June 2009 motor vehicle accident, depression, and substance abuse in reported remission.
(Tr. 14). Despite these impairments, the ALJ determined that Ms. Cornwell retained the residual
functional capacity (“RFC”) to:
perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(a) except occasionally
climbing ramps or stairs (never ladders, ropes or scaffolds), balancing, stooping,
kneeling, crouching and crawling; carrying out simple tasks in 2-hour increments;
and adapting to simple changes in a routine work setting.
(Tr. 16). After considering the testimony of a vocational expert (“VE”), the ALJ determined that
Ms. Cornwell 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. 22-23).
Ms. Cornwell presents three arguments on appeal. First, she argues that the ALJ failed to
include manipulative limitations in the hypothetical presented to the VE. Second, she contends
that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate her mental impairment. Finally, she contests the ALJ’s
adverse credibility assessment. Each argument lacks merit, and is addressed in turn.
Lisa Cornwell v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Civil No. SAG-13-1211
February 12, 2014
Page 2
Ms. Cornwell first contends that the hypothetical presented to the VE should have
included manipulative limitations, which may have precluded some sedentary jobs. Pl. Mot. 7-8.
The issue is whether the ALJ’s determination that no manipulative limitations were warranted
was supported by substantial evidence. Notably, the ALJ relied on Ms. Cornwell’s own
testimony at her hearing that she is able to use her left hand to write, that she can still use both
hands, and that any difficulties using her left hand have improved over time since the accident.
(Tr. 34-36). Contrary to Ms. Cornwell’s assertion, the ALJ did not rely on Ms. Cornwell’s
failure to attend multiple consultative examinations in rejecting the manipulative limitations
found by Dr. Honick in early 2010.1 (Tr. 19). Instead, the ALJ cited to Dr. Honick’s relatively
mild findings as to hand strength and to Ms. Cornwell’s own testimony that she had only slight
limitations in her use of her left hand. Id. The ALJ’s conclusions were therefore supported by
substantial evidence.
Next, Ms. Cornwell argues that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate her mental
impairment. Pl. Mot. 8-9. Specifically, she contends that the ALJ (1) disregarded Dr. Grady
Dale’s perceived limitations to her social functioning, and (2) improperly rejected Dr.
Anderson’s report as a result of school records showing no special education classes. Id. With
respect to Dr. Dale’s report, Ms. Cornwell is correct that Dr. Dale checked “moderately limited”
for “the ability to interact appropriately with the general public” in Section I of his opinion, (Tr.
609), and that the ALJ did not include any social limitations in her RFC assessment or her
hypothetical. However, the relevant portion of a physician's opinion is not Section I, which sets
forth a series of “check the box” rankings, but Section III, which provides a narrative functional
capacity assessment. See Program Operations Manual System DI 24510.060B (Mental Residual
Functional Capacity Assessment), available at https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/
lnx/0424510060 (“Section I is merely a worksheet to aid in deciding the presence and degree of
functional limitations and the adequacy of documentation and does not constitute the RFC
assessment.”). Because Section I does not include the requisite level of detail to inform the
ALJ's opinion, an ALJ need not address each of the Section I limitations. See, e .g., Andrews v.
Astrue, Civil No. SKG–09–3061, slip op. at *39 (D. Md. Oct. 25, 2011) (noting that “even if the
ALJ had not explicitly addressed each of the mental function limitations appearing on Section I
of the mental RFCA, he was not required to do so.”). Moreover, the ALJ adequately addressed
the limitations found in Dr. Dale's Section III functional capacity assessment. The ALJ limited
Ms. Cornwell to “carrying out simple tasks in 2-hour increments[,] and adapting to simple
changes in a routine work setting,” (Tr. 16), which is consistent with Dr. Dale's Section III
conclusions that Ms. Cornwell is “able to remember, understand and follow simple instructions”
and has the ability to “navigate her social environment.” (Tr. 610).
1
In fact, however, as the Commissioner notes, failure to attend even a single consultative examination can
result in a denial of benefits. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1518, 416.918 (“If you are applying for benefits and
do not have a good reason for failing or refusing to take part in a consultative examination or test which
we arrange for you . . . we may find that you are not disabled.”). Ms. Cornwell missed four scheduled
consultative examinations, (Tr. 18), which would constitute an independent reason for the Commissioner
to deny her claim.
Lisa Cornwell v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Civil No. SAG-13-1211
February 12, 2014
Page 3
The ALJ also provided substantial evidence supporting her rejection of the opinion of Dr.
Anderson, who examined Ms. Cornwell on a single occasion at the request of her counsel. (Tr.
12, 20). Although Dr. Anderson assessed an IQ of 60, the ALJ did not find it to be valid because
the academic records did not show enrollment in special education classes and demonstrated that
Ms. Cornwell had received “Bs” in several subjects and a cumulative GPA of 2.53 in the tenth
grade. (Tr. 20). The ALJ also noted that Ms. Cornwell had completed the disability function
report herself with some assistance, was very articulate at the hearing, and reported caring for her
aunt for ten years. (Tr. 21). In light of that substantial evidence cited, it would be inappropriate
for me to reweigh the evidence considered by the ALJ.
Finally, Ms. Cornwell contests the ALJ’s adverse credibility finding, alleging that the
ALJ made an erroneous finding regarding her claimed date of sobriety. Pl. Mot. 9-10. In fact,
however, the date of sobriety was only one issue among many cited by the ALJ in support of her
adverse credibility determination. The ALJ also relied on the “significant difference” between
Ms. Cornwell’s subjective complaints and the objective evidence and medical treatment, her
failure to attend four consultative examinations without notifying the physicians of the
cancellations, and her failure to report all of her daily activities, including the fact that she had
cared for an aunt for ten years. (Tr. 18-19). In light of the substantial evidence cited by the ALJ
to support the adverse credibility assessment, even discounting the discussion of the claimed
sobriety date, remand is unwarranted.
For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 17)
will be DENIED and the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 19) 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
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?