Hartman v. Colvin

Filing 18

ORDER denying 16 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 17 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie A Gallagher on 10/30/2017. (kw2s, 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 30, 2017
LETTER TO COUNSEL
RE:

Corina V. Hartman v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Civil No. SAG-16-4026

Dear Counsel:
On December 19, 2016, Plaintiff Corina Hartman petitioned this Court to review the
Social Security Administration’s final decision to deny he claim for Disability Insurance Benefits
(“DIB”). [ECF No. 1]. I have considered the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.
[ECF Nos. 16, 17]. I find that no hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). This
Court must uphold the decision of the Agency if it is supported by substantial evidence and if the
Agency employed proper legal standards. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3); Craig v. Chater,
76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996). Under that standard, I will deny Ms. Hartman’s motion, grant
the Commissioner’s motion, and affirm the Commissioner’s judgment pursuant to sentence four
of 42 U.S.C. § 405. This letter explains my rationale.
Ms. Hartman protectively filed her claim for DIB on July 22, 2011. (Tr. 272-78). She
alleged a disability onset date of February 16, 2009. Id. Her claim was denied initially and on
reconsideration. (Tr. 154-58, 164-70). A hearing was held on August 8, 2013, before an
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (Tr. 70-108). After the hearing, the ALJ determined that
Ms. Hartman was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act during the relevant
time frame. (Tr. 131-48). The Appeals Council granted Ms. Hartman’s request for review and
issued an order remanding the case to an ALJ. (Tr. 149-53). On May 14, 2015, a hearing was
held before a new ALJ. (Tr. 30-67). On June 18, 2015, the ALJ denied Ms. Hartman’s claim for
DIB. (Tr. 8-29). The Appeals Council denied Ms. Hartman’s request for review, so the ALJ’s
2015 decision constitutes the final, reviewable decision of the Agency. (Tr. 1-6).
The ALJ found that Ms. Hartman suffered from the severe impairment of “degenerative
disc disorder of the lumbar spine.” (Tr. 13). Despite this impairment, the ALJ determined that
Ms. Hartman retained the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to:
perform a range of light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) involving
lifting/carrying up to 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently (with a
maximum of 5-10 pounds at a time per arm), standing up to 2/3 of a work day,
walking up to 2/3 of a work day, and sitting up to 2/3 of a work day.

Hartman v. Social Security Administration
Civil No. SAG-16-4026
October 30, 2017
Page 2 of 3
(Tr. 15). After considering the testimony of a vocational expert (“VE”), the ALJ determined that
Ms. Hartman could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy, and
that, therefore, she was not disabled. (Tr. 23).
Ms. Hartman’s sole argument on appeal is that the ALJ erroneously assessed her RFC by
misinterpreting the consultative examination opinion of Dr. Praveen Bolarum. [ECF No. 16-1,
5-7]. Specifically, Ms. Hartman contends that Dr. Bolarum did not find that she had the RFC to
stand, sit, and walk for two-thirds of a work day, which conflicts with the ALJ’s statement that
she did. (Tr. 21); [ECF No. 16-1, 6]. Instead, Ms. Hartman argues that Dr. Bolarum, in finding
that she had “limitation in standing, sitting, and walking occasionally,” clearly determined “not
that [she] was capable of standing, sitting, and walking up to two-thirds of a work day each, but
rather that [she] was capable of standing, sitting, and walking less than one third of a work day
each.” (Tr. 21); [ECF No. 16-1, 6]. The Commissioner, meanwhile, contends that the ALJ
properly interpreted Dr. Bolarum’s findings in concluding that Ms. Hartman could stand, sit, and
walk for two-thirds of a work day. [ECF No. 17-1, 5-6].
The ALJ gave Dr. Bolarum’s January 10, 2015 consultative physical examination of Ms.
Hartman “great weight” because it was “balance[d], objective, and generally consistent with the
medical evidence of record.” (Tr. 21). Dr. Bolarum concluded that Ms. Hartman has:
“limitation in standing occasionally in an 8 hour work day . . . has limitation in sitting
occasionally in an 8 hour work day . . . [and] has limitation in walking occasionally in an 8 hour
work day.”
(Tr. 560)(emphasis added).
Moreover, Dr. Bolarum’s exam included a
“LIMITATIONS KEY,” which expressly defined “Occasionally” as: “very little up to 1/3 total
of an 8 hour work day.” (Tr. 560). For reference, the remaining limitations included in the key
were: (1) “Frequently,” defined as “1/3 to 2/3 total of an 8 hour work day;” and (2)
“Continuously,” defined as “more than 2/3 of an 8 hour work day.” (Tr. 560).
I find that there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s conclusion that Ms. Hartman
was capable of standing, walking, and sitting up to two-thirds of a work day. (Tr. 15). Because
Ms. Hartman was limited in standing, sitting, and walking “occasionally,” defined as “very little
up to 1/3 total of an 8 hour work day,” by default, Dr. Bolarum must have believed that she could
stand, sit, and walk for the remaining two-thirds of the work day. Indeed, had Dr. Bolarum
believed Ms. Hartman to be more severely limited, he surely would have used either of the more
stringent two remaining terms, “frequently” or “continuously,” to reflect as much or would have
stated that she is limited to standing, sitting, and walking occasionally. Moreover, the ALJ’s
interpretation of Dr. Bolarum’s findings comports with the remainder of Dr. Bolarum’s report,
which provided that Ms. Hartman: (1) ambulated without difficulty; (2) could “get up and out of
the chair without difficulty;” (3) could “get on and off the examination table without difficulty;”
(4) demonstrated a normal gait; (5) could walk on her heels; (6) could squat to the floor; (7)
could bend over and touch her toes; (8) had 5/5 grip strength; and (9) had 5/5 motor strength in
all extremities. (Tr. 558-60). Finally, the ALJ’s interpretation comports with the objective
medical evidence of record, which demonstrates: (1) that Ms. Hartman’s treatment has been
limited and conservative with substantial gaps in treatment; (2) that her back condition has never
required surgery, steroidal injections, or hospitalization; (3) that repeated physical exams failed

Hartman v. Social Security Administration
Civil No. SAG-16-4026
October 30, 2017
Page 3 of 3
to reveal results consistent with the impairment alleged; (4) that she has not complied with
recommended treatment; (5) and that her average daily activities “are not as limited as one would
expect, given the complaints of disabling symptoms and limitations.” (Tr. 19). As such, remand
is not warranted in this case.
For the reasons set forth above, Ms. Hartman’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No.
16] is DENIED and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 17] is GRANTED.
The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
Despite the informal nature of this letter, it should be flagged as an opinion and docketed
as an order.
Sincerely yours,
/s/
Stephanie A. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge