Clark v. Colvin

Filing 16

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING 13 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; plaintiff's 14 objection to the Report and Recommendation is hereby overruled; plaintiff's 6 motion for summary judgment is denied; defendant's 10 motion for an order affirming the decision of the Commissioner is granted. Signed by District Judge William H. Barbour, Jr on 8/23/17. (RRL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
ROBERT D. CLARK

PLAINTIFF

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-cv-369-WHB-JCG

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner
of the Social Security Administration

DEFENDANT

OPINION AND ORDER
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objection to the
Report and Recommendation (“R and R”) of United States Magistrate
Judge

John

Objection,1

C.
the

Gargiulo.
record

in

The
this

Court,
case,

having
as

considered

well

as

the

governing

authorities, finds the Objection should be overruled, and the
subject Report and Recommendation adopted in its entirety.

I.

Discussion

In 2010, Plaintiff, Robert Clark (“Clark”), filed applications
for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security
Income

Disability

Benefits

(“SSI”)

with

the

Social

Security

Administration, claiming a disability onset date of November 30,
2009.

In May of 2012, Administrative Law Judge Wallace E. Weakly

issued a decision denying Clark’s applications on a finding that he

1

Defendant has filed a Notice indicating that she will not
respond to Plaintiff’s Objection, and that she has no objections
to the Report and Recommendation. See Notice [Docket No. 15].

was not disabled. Clark sought review in this Court.

See Clark v.

Colvin, Civil Action No. 4:14-cv-102-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss.).

By

Agreed Order, ALJ Weakly’s decision was reversed, and the case was
remanded for further administrative proceedings.
of Remand [Docket No. 14].

Id. Agreed Order

The Agreed Order required the ALJ to:

evaluate the nature and severity of the claimant’s mental
impairment, in order to ascertain whether it is severe or
non severe pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920;
re-evaluate the claimant’s residual functional capacity
given the claimant’s mental and physical impairments; reevaluate the medical source opinion provided by James
Lock, M.D., and provide sufficient rationale under 20
C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927 in support of the weight
he gives this opinion; and take any other action deemed
necessary.
Id.
On remand, Clark’s applications for DIB and SSI benefits were
considered by Administrative Law Judge Lanier Williams. On May 15,
2015, ALJ Williams entered a decision concluding that Clark had not
been disabled for the purpose of being awarded DIB and SSI benefits
prior to April 28, 2014, but that he became disabled on that date
because, inter alia, (1) no jobs existed in significant numbers in
the national economy that he could perform, and (2) a finding of
disability was directed by Medical-Vocational Rule 201.10. See
Admin. Rec. [Docket No. 5], at 424-36.2

Following the denial of

review on administrative appeal, Clark filed suit in this Court
challenging the decision of the Social Security Administration.

2

Citations to the Administrative Record bear the page numbers
assigned when that Record was electronically filed in this Court.
2

The matter came before Judge Gargiulo on competing motions,
with Clark moving to vacate the decision of the Social Security
Commissioner, and the Commissioner moving to affirm.

On review,

Judge Gargiulo entered a Report and Recommendation finding that the
decisions made by the ALJ with respect to (1) the weight to be
given

to

the

Medical

Source

Statements

of

Clark’s

treating

physician, Dr. James Lock, and (2) Clark’s disability onset date,
were supported by substantial evidence and, therefore, were not
grounds for reversing his decision.

See R and R [Docket No. 23].

After finding Clark had not shown grounds for reversal, Judge
Gargiulo recommended that the decision of the Commissioner be
affirmed.

Id.

Clark timely objected to the R and R.

As to his

objections, this district judge has the authority to review Judge
Gargiulo’s R and R, and is required to make a de novo determination
of any portion thereof to which a specific written objection has
been

made.

See

28

U.S.C.

§

636(b);

FED. R. CIV. P.

72(b).

Thereafter, this district judge may accept, reject, or modify the
R and R; receive further evidence in the case; or recommit the
matter to the magistrate with further instructions.

Id.

Clark first objects to Judge Gargiulo’s finding/conclusion
that ALJ Williams provided sufficient rational for giving little
weight to the Medical Source Statements (“MSSs”) of his treating
physician, Dr. James Lock.

As to the issue of whether the ALJ

erred by giving little weight to Lock’s MSSs, Judge Gargiulo first

3

cited ALJ Williams’s reasons for so doing, namely: (1) Lock’s
opinions in the MSSs were not consistent with other substantial
evidence in the record; (2) no other treating or examining source
found the same degree of physical limitation or symptoms as had
Lock; (3) the medical findings and diagnostic evidence in the
record did not support the degree of restriction assigned by Lock
in the MSSs; and (4) Lock’s own longitudinal medical records of
Clark’s treatment did not “document persistent symptoms or physical
abnormalities

consistent”

with

the

degree

of

restriction

he

assigned in the MSSs.

See R and R, at 8 (quoting Admin. Rec.

[Docket No. 5] at 432).

Judge Gargiulo next considered the Newton

factors as follows:
The ALJ provided sufficient rationale for giving little
weight to Dr. Lock’s medical source statements. While
the ALJ gave the medical source statements little weight,
he did so by comparing them to Dr. Lock’s contemporaneous
treatment records. The ALJ determined that the treatment
records reflected episodic complaints and did not
consistently document the severe limitations related to
neck and back pain that Clark alleged or that Dr. Lock
found in his medical source statements. While [Clark],
on occasion complained of severe pain and Dr. Lock made
abnormal
findings,
the
ALJ
concluded
that
the
longitudinal record did not demonstrate a disabling
impairment lasting for at least twelve continuous months.
R and R, at 9 (quoting Admin. Rec. [Docket No. 5] at 432-33; and
475-76).

Judge

Gargiulo

also

found

the

ALJ’s

decision

was

supported by Lock’s medical records that showed that on twenty-two
medical visits between 2012 and 2014, Clark had not reported any
back, neck, joint, or pain/weakness and had a normal gait and full

4

range of motion in his neck.

R and R, at 10 (citations to

Administrative Record omitted).
Next, Judge Gargiulo found the ALJ’s decision to give Lock’s
MSSs little weight because they were based, in part, on Clark’s
subjective complaints of pain, was also supported by the record.
Id. at 11.

Again, the record showed that Lock’s own medical

records noted multiple examinations during which Clark offered no
complaints of pain or physical limitation. Additionally, Clark did
not have any symptoms of back, leg, neck, joint, or muscle pain/
weakness, and exhibited a normal gait, when he was examined by Dr.
Thomas Jeffcoat during a consultive examination in June of 2013.
See R and R, at 11 (citing Admin. Rec., 576).
After reviewing ALJ Williams’s finding with respect to the
weight to be given to Lock’s MSSs as well as multiple documents in
the Administrative Record, Judge Gargiulo found Williams’s decision
to assign little weight to Lock’s MSSs was supported by substantial
evidence in the record.

Clark objects to this finding on the

grounds that ALJ Williams did not provide a detailed analysis with
respect to each of the Newton factors, namely the nature and extent
of his treatment by Lock, when considering the weight to be given
to Lock’s MSSs.

It is clear from the Administrative Record,

however, that the ALJ knew that Clark had been a patient of Lock
for many years, and the ALJ also knew of the nature/extent of the
treatment Lock was providing.

It is also clear that the ALJ was

5

aware that, because Lock was Clark’s treating physician, his MSSs
were to be “considered for controlling weight.”

See Admin. Rec.,

at 432 (“Dr. Lock is a treating source, so these medical source
statements have been considered for controlling weight.”).

ALJ

Williams, however, found Lock’s MSSs could not be given controlling
weight in this case because, inter alia, they were not supported by
medical and/or diagnostic testing, and they were inconsistent with
Lock’s own longitudinal treatment records of Clark.
Clark also objects to Judge Gargiulo’s findings with respect
to the ALJ’s assessment of the credibility of his (Clark’s)
subjective complaint.

As noted by Judge Gargiulo, however, the

credibility determinations made by the ALJ were fully within his
province. See R and R, at 13 (citing Greenspan v. Shalala, 38 F.3d
232, 237 (5th Cir. 1994)).
As the record supports Judge Gargiulo’s findings/conclusions
that ALJ Williams provided sufficient rational for giving little
weight to Lock’s MMSs, and for his credibility determinations, the
Court

finds

Clark’s

objection

with

respect

to

these

findings/conclusions should be overruled.
Second, Clark objects to Judge Gargiulo’s finding/conclusion
that the ALJ’s determination that the onset date of disability was
April 28, 2014, was also supported by substantial evidence.

As to

this issue, Judge Gargiulo found ALJ Williams had fully explained
his decision to credit and adopt the opinions and impairment-

6

related restrictions assigned by Dr. Cleve Johnson, an orthopedist,
who examined Clark on October 28, 2014.

See R and R, 12-13.

Judge

Gargiulo also found the ALJ’s onset of disability determination was
supported by Lock’s contemporaneous medical treatment record as
well as the opinions of Drs. Johnson, Jeffcoat, and James.

Id.

Clark objects to this finding on the grounds the ALJ did not
adequately consider the severity and duration of his symptoms as
assigned by Lock in his MSSs, and that had Lock’s opinions been
properly considered, the onset date of disability would have been
earlier.

As

discussed

above,

however,

there

is

substantial

evidence in the Administrative Record to support the ALJ’s having
given little weight to Lock’s MSSs.

Clark also objects to the

onset of disability date on the grounds that he has a progressive
illness and, therefore, the ALJ should have consulted a medical
advisor when making that determination.

Although use of a medical

advisor is required in cases in which the date of disability is
ambiguous, see Spellman v. Shalala, 1 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 1993), no
ambiguity has been shown here because (1) the finding of disability
in

this

case

was

predicated

on

application

of

the

Medical-

Vocational Rules, and (2) and a finding of disability before April
of 2014, is not supported by the medical record.
As the record supports Judge Gargiulo’s finding/conclusion
that the ALJ’s determination that the onset date of disability was
April 28, 2014, was supported by substantial evidence, the Court

7

finds Clark’s objection with respect to this finding/conclusion
should be overruled.
Having considered Clark’s objections, the Court finds Judge
Gargiulo’s Report and Recommendation is well reasoned and supported
by applicable law.

The Court additionally finds that the decision

of ALJ Williams was supported by substantial evidence, and includes
no legal errors that would require the Court to reverse or remand
it.

Accordingly, the Court will adopt Judge Gargiulo’s Report and

Recommendation over Clark’s objection. In so doing, Clark’s Motion
for Summary Judgment will be denied, the Commissioner’s Motion to
Affirm will be granted, and a final judgment dismissing this case
with prejudice will be entered.

II.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons:
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 13] is hereby accepted and adopted
as the Opinion and Order of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objection to the Report
and Recommendation [Docket No. 14] is hereby overruled.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [Docket No. 6] is hereby denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for an Order
Affirming the Decision of the Commissioner [Docket No. 10] is

8

hereby granted.

A Final Judgment dismissing this case shall be

entered this day.
SO ORDERED this the 23rd day of August, 2017.

s/ William H. Barbour, Jr.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9