Wilson v. Astrue

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. 1. Plaintiff Roberta L. Wilson's objections (Doc. No. 18 ) to Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois's August 2, 2013 Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED. 2. Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois's A ugust 2, 2013 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 15 ), is ADOPTED. 3. Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 8 ) is DENIED. 4. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 11 ) is GRANTED.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 09/272013. (BJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Roberta L. Wilson,

Civil No. 12-1223 (DWF/LIB)
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

Carolyn W. Colvin (Acting Commissioner
Of Social Security),
Defendant.

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Roberta L. Wilson’s (“Plaintiff’s”)
Objections, (Doc. No. 18), to Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois’s August 2, 2013 Report
and Recommendation (Doc. No. 15). The Report and Recommendation recommends
that: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 8), be denied;
(2) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 11), be granted; and (3) if the
Report and Recommendation is adopted, that Judgment be entered accordingly. (Report
and Recommendation (“R&R”) at 35.) On August 12, 2013 Plaintiff filed Objections to
the Report and Recommendation, (Doc. No. 18), and on August 26, 2013 Defendant filed
a responsive memorandum addressing Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. No. 20).
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record, including a review of the
arguments and submissions of counsel, and including the Administrative record in this
matter, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.2(b).

The factual background for the above-entitled matter is clearly and precisely set
forth in the Report and Recommendation and is incorporated by reference for purposes of
addressing Plaintiff’s objections.
Plaintiff argues that: (1) the Report and Recommendation failed to analyze the
opinions of Dr. Lace with the appropriate weight and, as a result, erroneously determined
that Dr. Lace was not an acceptable medical source; (2) the Report and Recommendation
incorrectly characterized Dr. Lace as Plaintiff’s witness which implied that Dr. Lace was
not an impartial witness; (3) the Report and Recommendation failed to appropriately
consider the opinions of other health care workers who provided treatment to
Ms. Wilson, including Theresa Carr, CNS, the Vocational Expert, and Penny Klitzki,
ARMHS worker; (4) the Report and Recommendation failed to consider that the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) did not use the proper legal standard when it
evaluated the evidence provided by Ms. Carr and Ms. Klitzki; (5) the Report and
Recommendation failed to consider that the ALJ failed to evaluate the consultative
examiners appropriately, and incorrectly weighed their opinions; and (6) the Report and
Recommendation accorded too much weight to GAF ratings assigned by persons
providing mental health services contrary to other conflicting evidence.
For judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision to deny disability benefits the
Court must examine whether the ALJ’s decision “is supported by substantial evidence on
the record as a whole.” Tellez v. Barnhart, 403 F.3d 953, 956 (8th Cir. 2005) (citations
omitted). “If, after reviewing the record, the court finds it is possible to draw two
inconsistent positions from the evidence and one of those positions represents the ALJ’s
2

findings, the court must affirm the ALJ’s decision.” Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 789
(8th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).
The central issue under consideration in the R&R is the ALJ’s determination that
Plaintiff would not still be disabled if she stopped using drugs and/or alcohol and that she
would have only mild restrictions in activities of daily living if she stopped abusing
substances. (R&R at 20-21.) In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge
concluded that “[c]ertainly Wilson has many psychosocial factors contributing to
depression and anxiety, and one could easily believe a person with her problems might be
severely depressed and anxious, but there is substantial evidence in the record supporting
the ALJ’s determination that substance abuse was a contributing factor material to
disability.” (R&R at 35.)
The Report and Recommendation cites to at least the following evidentiary
support found in the Administrative Record for the ALJ’s findings: Plaintiff’s psychiatric
medications controlled her symptoms when she was not using drugs or alcohol (see R&R
at 28, 31-34); Plaintiff’s GAF scores of 55-60 supported the ALJ’s conclusion that her
symptoms were only moderate when she was abstaining (id.); Plaintiff’s ability to attend
school and look for work after her disability onset date was inconsistent with disability
(id.); Plaintiff’s mental exams were relatively normal when she was abstaining (id.);
Plaintiff’s daily activities were also inconsistent with disability (id.); and the R&R found
that all of the above-listed evidence was corroborated by the examining consultants’
opinions (id.).

3

In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge also held that “it was
proper for the ALJ to take the additional evidence of record into account in
determining Wilson’s residual functional capacity.” (R&R, at 34 citing Casey v.
Astrue, 503 F.3d 687, 697 (8th Cir. 2007) (affirming the ALJ who relied on the
reviewing physician’s opinion together with other medical evidence in the record in
arriving at RFC determination); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“[w]e will evaluate the
degree to which [nonexamining] opinions consider all of the pertinent evidence in
your claim”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b) (“we will always consider the medical opinions
in your case record together with the rest of the relevant evidence we receive”); 20
C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1) (“[w]e will assess your residual functional capacity based on
all the relevant evidence in your case record”).)
Finally, the Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ accorded proper weight to each
of the medical sources involved in the case based on an examination of consistency
amongst the medical opinions and the evidence in the record. (R&R at 30-31.)
The Court notes that those professionals, both medical and non-medical, who have
worked most closely with Plaintiff, have found and documented an ongoing history of at
least depression, anxiety, personality disorders, back pain, and hepatitis C irrespective of
her chemical dependency status. (See R&R at 8-9.) A number of those sources opined
that she would continue to be disabled by those medical issues even if she stopped her
addictive behavior, and that she could not perform jobs identified by the vocational
expert. (Id. at 12, 18-19.) The Court respectfully rejects the assertion by the ALJ, joined
in by the Commissioner, that the testimony and documentation of a highly trained and
4

educated physician’s assistant and ARMHS worker, Ms. Klitzki, should be given little to
no weight. The ALJ may use evidence from other sources (non-medical) to show the
severity of an individual’s impairment (SSR 06-3p at *45595-96), but the ALJ fails to
explain his dismissal of this source’s testimony beyond her status as a non-qualified
medical professional. Professionals like Ms. Klitzki are precisely the individuals whose
testimony should be considered in matters such as this one; who spent the most time with
Ms. Wilson; and who displayed an understanding of the complicated interrelationship
between addiction and mental health issues related to disability. Numerous initials
behind one’s name, whether an M.D. or some other initials, should not be tantamount to
determinative expertise in this very complicated and oftentimes misunderstood area of
mental health and addiction and should be given their due weight along with sources like
Ms. Klitzki. This Court notes that its own view of the record shows that Plaintiff is
unable to work, and based on the evidence before it, this Court would have found that
Plaintiff was disabled and should have received an award of benefits. However, this
Court finds the ALJ’s view of the record can also be supported by one view of the
evidence and by testimony and opinions offered in this matter, and for this reason the
Court must concur with the R&R.
Therefore, having carefully reviewed the record de novo and having carefully
considered all of the arguments and submissions of the parties, the Court concludes that
Plaintiff’s objections do not warrant departure from the Magistrate Judge’s ultimate
Recommendation and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the position

5

taken by the ALJ can be supported by the evidence in the record. The Court, being
otherwise duly advised in the premises, hereby enters the following:
ORDER
1.

Plaintiff Roberta L. Wilson’s objections (Doc. No. [18]) to Magistrate

Judge Leo I. Brisbois’s August 2, 2013 Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED.
2.

Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois’s August 2, 2013 Report and

Recommendation (Doc. No. [15]), is ADOPTED.
3.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. [8]) is DENIED.

4.

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. [11]) is

GRANTED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: September 27, 2013

s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge

6