Ross v. Social Security Administration
Filing
9
ORDER AND OPINION AFFIRMING COMMISSIONER'S FINAL DECISION DENYING BENEFITS. Signed on 10/30/15 by District Judge Ortrie D. Smith. (Matthes, Renea)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION
JAMES ROSS,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
)
Acting Commissioner of Social Security, )
)
Defendant.
)
Case No. 15-4075-CV-C-ODS-SSA
ORDER AND OPINION AFFIRMING
COMMISSIONER’S FINAL DECISION DENYING BENEFITS
Pending is Plaintiff’s appeal of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final
decision denying his applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental
security income. The Commissioner’s decision is affirmed.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court’s review of the Commissioner’s decision is limited to a determination
whether the decision is “supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance but . . . enough that a reasonable
mind would find it adequate to support the conclusion.” Andrews v. Colvin, 791 F.3d
923, 928 (8th Cir. 2015) (citations omitted). “As long as substantial evidence in the
record supports the Commissioner's decision, we may not reverse it because
substantial evidence exists in the record that would have supported a contrary outcome,
or because we would have decided the case differently.” Cline v. Colvin, 771 F.3d
1098, 1102 (8th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). Though advantageous to the
Commissioner, this standard also requires that the Court consider evidence that fairly
detracts from the final decision. Anderson v. Astrue, 696 F.3d 790, 793 (8th Cir. 2015)
(citation omitted). Substantial evidence means “more than a mere scintilla” of evidence;
rather, it is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion. Gragg v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 932, 938 (8th Cir. 2010).
II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff was born in 1971, and has at least a high school education. R. at 24, 35,
38. In August 2012, Plaintiff applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental
security income, alleging a disability onset date of November 20, 2011. R. at 11, 15164. Plaintiff’s applications were denied, and he requested a hearing. A hearing was
held in November 2013, after which the ALJ issued her decision finding that Plaintiff
was not disabled. R. at 11-25, 30-70.
In reaching her decision, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the following severe
impairments: scoliosis, minimal spondylosis, pituitary adenoma, lipoma of skin,
gastroesophageal reflux disease, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
tachycardia, hypertension, and mental impairments variously diagnosed as posttraumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, alcohol dependence, anxiety disorder, and
mood disorder. R. at 13. The ALJ determined Plaintiff had the residual functional
capacity (“RFC”) to perform light work as defined except he could not climb ladders,
scaffolds, or ropes; must avoid concentrated exposure to fumes, odors, dusts, gases,
and poor ventilation; was limited to simple and routine work with frequent interaction
with coworkers and supervisors and occasional interaction with the general public; and
was limited to no more than ten minutes straight in a bending position from the waist,
not to include sitting, every four hours for a total bending time of twenty minutes in an
eight-hour day. R. at 16. The ALJ concluded, based upon this RFC and the testimony
of the Vocational Expert (“VE”), Plaintiff could work as an inspector hand packager and
small products assembler. R. at 24.
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ’s RFC determination was not supported by
substantial evidence because the ALJ should have accorded more deference to the
2
opinion of Cheryl Hemme, M.D., Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist, when making her RFC
determination. The Court disagrees.
The ALJ accorded “little weight” to the Medical Source Statement (“MSS”)
completed by Dr. Hemme due to inconsistencies between Dr. Hemme’s MSS and his
treatment notes. R. at 23. A treating physician’s opinion may be disregarded if it is
unsupported by clinical or other data or is contrary to the weight of the remaining
evidence in the record. See e.g., Anderson v. Astrue, 696 F.3d 790, 793-94 (8th Cir.
2012); Pena v. Chater, 76 F.3d 906, 908 (8th Cir. 1996). In addition, “[a] treating
physician's own inconsistency may also undermine his opinion and diminish or eliminate
the weight given his opinions,” such as when he offers an opinion that is inconsistent
with his contemporaneous treatment notes. Hacker v. Barnhart, 459 F.3d 934, 937 (8th
Cir. 2006).
Here, Dr. Hemme’s MSS suggested more serious limitations than those reflected
in her contemporaneous treatment notes. The MSS indicated Plaintiff was “markedly”
or “extremely” limited in fourteen of the twenty areas of consideration. R. at 1034-35.
Yet, in her treatment notes, Dr. Hemme stated, among other things, Plaintiff responded
well to treatment when he took his prescribed medications and abstained from alcohol.
R. at 19-20, 23, 355-56, 671-72, 695-96, 950-51, 996-97. Dr. Hemme also noted that
Plaintiff self-reported he was doing “pretty good,” doing “fine,” his mood was “fairly
stable,” he had not “gotten angry or snapped” at anyone for several months,” and
“feeling better overall,” but was a “mess” when he did not take his medications. R. at
19-20, 547, 671-72, 756, 768-69, 830, 950-51. In addition, Plaintiff informed other
medical providers that he felt stable and the medications prescribed by Dr. Hemme
helped him feel more stable. R. at 528, 547, 610, 659, 694, 714, 833. Furthermore,
medical providers, counselors, and social workers often described Plaintiff’s mood as
euthymic when interacting with him. R. at 364-65, 507, 531, 557, 564, 568, 573, 592,
594, 600, 603, 605, 610, 612, 655-56, 658-59, 662, 678, 683, 686, 691, 701, 707, 710,
712, 716, 718, 727, 732, 734, 755, 766, 829, 958, 964, 971, 980, 989-90, 1003, 1006,
1022. Significantly, Plaintiff also testified before the ALJ that his medications were
effective, and the medications generally controlled his mental impairments. R. at 54,
59. These medical records and observations, combined with Plaintiff’s testimony, are
3
inconsistent with Dr. Hemme’s opinion that Plaintiff is “markedly” or “extremely” limited
mentally. Having found inconsistencies between Dr. Hemme’s treatment notes and Dr.
Hemme’s MSS, the ALJ was entitled to afford little weight to Dr. Hemme’s opinion.
Based upon the record, the Court does not find that the ALJ erred in accorded “little
weight” to the MSS completed by Dr. Hemme.
Further, the Court finds the portions of the RFC pertaining to Plaintiff’s mental
limitations are supported by substantial evidence in the record. The ALJ found that
Plaintiff must be limited to simple and routine work with frequent interaction with
coworkers and supervisors and occasional interaction with the general public. R. at 24.
Plaintiff testified that he often played pool, cards, and dominos with others, attends
church two or three times per month, and visits with at least one friend, but he has
troubles with large crowds. R. at 45-51, 59; see also R. at 254-57. Additionally, the
medical evidence and observations from social workers and counselors support the
ALJ’s finding with regard to Plaintiff’s mental limitations. R. at 19-20. And Dr. Hemme,
Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist, opined that Plaintiff could not understand, remember, or
carry out detailed instructions. R. at 1034. Plaintiff’s testimony, other medical
providers’ treatment notes, and even part of Dr. Hemme’s MSS support the mental
limitations set forth in the ALJ’s RFC determination. Accordingly, the ALJ’s RFC
determination related to Plaintiff’s mental limitations are supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Court concludes there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to
support the ALJ’s decision, so the denial of benefits is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Ortrie D. Smith
ORTRIE D. SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DATE: October 30, 2015
4
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?