Ford-Claypool v. Astrue
ORDER re 4 SOCIAL SECURITY COMPLAINT filed by Janice K. Ford-Claypool, affirming decision of Commissioner; dismissing case. Signed on 8/13/2013 by Magistrate Judge Matt J. Whitworth. (Bode, Kay)
Ford-Claypool v. Astrue
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
JANICE K. FORD-CLAYPOOL,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Social Security Administration,
Plaintiff Janice K. Ford-Claypool seeks judicial review,1 of a final administrative
decision denying plaintiff disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.
'' 401 et seq. Section 205(g) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g), provides for judicial review of a
final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration under Title II. The
parties= briefs are fully submitted, and an oral argument was held on July 6, 2013. The complete
facts and arguments are presented in the parties= briefs and will not be repeated here.
Standard of Review
The Eighth Circuit has set forth the standard for the federal courts’ judicial review of
denial of benefits, as follows:
Our role on review is to determine whether the Commissioner’s findings are
supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Substantial evidence
is less than a preponderance, but is enough that a reasonable mind would find it
adequate to support the Commissioner’s conclusion. In determining whether
existing evidence is substantial, we consider evidence that detracts from the
Commissioner’s decision as well as evidence that supports it. 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
Baker v. Barnhart, 457 F.3d 882, 892 (8th Cir. 2006).
The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge,
pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
The claimant has the initial burden of establishing the existence of a disability as defined
by 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1). See Roth v. Shalala, 45 F.3d 279, 282 (8th Cir. 1995). To meet the
statutory definition, "the claimant must show (1) that he has a medically determinable physical or
mental impairment which will either last for at least twelve months or result in death, (2) that he
is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity, and (3) that this inability is the result of
his impairment." McMillian v. Schweiker, 697 F.2d 215, 220 (8th Cir. 1983).
When reviewing the record to determine if there is substantial evidence to support the
administrative decision, the court considers the educational background, work history and
present age of the claimant; subjective complaints of pain or other impairments; claimant’s
description of physical activities and capabilities; the medical opinions given by treating and
examining physicians; the corroboration by third parties of claimant’s impairments; and the
testimony of vocational experts when based upon proper hypothetical questions that fairly set
forth the claimant’s impairments. McMillian, 697 F.2d at 221.
Plaintiff is a 52-year-old woman with an 11th grade education and past relevant work as
an automobile salesperson. She filed her application for disability on August 28, 2009, alleging
a disability onset date of January 15, 2009. Plaintiff alleges disability primarily due to right knee
disorder, status-post knee replacement on September 23, 2009, and obesity.
The decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ) found plaintiff did suffer from the
severe impairments of right knee disorder, status-post knee replacement on September 23, 2009,
and obesity. However, the ALJ found that these impairments did not meet a listing in 20 C.F.R.,
Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, or support that plaintiff was totally disabled. The ALJ
determined that while plaintiff did suffer from impairments, the medical evidence and other
evidence of record did not support the severity alleged by plaintiff. Plaintiff was given a residual
functional capacity (RFC) capable of performing a range of light work, with limitations to
account for her impairments. Plaintiff was determined capable of doing her past relevant work
as an automobile salesperson. In making this decision, the ALJ relied on testimony from a
vocational expert who testified at the hearing that considering the demands of plaintiff’s past
relevant work and the RFC determined by the ALJ, plaintiff could perform her past relevant
work as it is customarily performed.
Plaintiff alleges the ALJ erred in not giving controlling weight to the opinion of the
treating physician, Dr. Kafka, and in improperly discounting plaintiff’s credibility. The
Commissioner argues the ALJ’s determination of plaintiff’s credibility is supported by
substantial evidence, as is the weight assigned to the medical opinions of record.
Upon review, for the reasons set forth below, this Court finds the final decision of the
Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.
The ALJ did not err in the weight given to the medical opinions of record. Specifically,
the ALJ did not err in the decision not to give controlling weight to the Medical Source
Statement of plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Kafka. Although a treating physician's opinion is
generally entitled to substantial weight, it does not automatically control in the face of other
credible evidence on the record that detracts from that opinion. Heino v. Astrue, 578 F.3d 873,
880 (8th Cir. 2009). An ALJ is entitled to discount the opinion of a treating physician when that
opinion is conclusory or inconsistent with the evidence of record. Samons v. Astrue, 497 F.3d
813, 819 (8th Cir. 2007). Here, the ALJ properly discussed the reasons for discounting Dr.
Kafka’s opinion, specifically noting the lack of objective medical evidence to support the
opinions of Dr. Kafka. The ALJ also properly discussed the basis for giving more weight to the
opinion of Dr. Levine, citing this opinion as supported by the objective medical record. Shontos
v. Barnhart, 328 F.3d 418, 426 (8th Cir. 2003) (discussing factors in considering amount of
weight given to a medical opinion); Heino, 578 F.3d 879 (ALJ properly credited other medical
evaluations in the record over that of treating physician because those assessments were
supported by better evidence within the record as a whole). It is further noted that the Appeals
Council properly considered and discounted the opinion of Dr. Lofgreen which was submitted
two months after the ALJ’s decision, noting, like Dr. Kafka’s opinion, this opinion was not
supported by the objective medical evidence or even the physician’s own examination.
The ALJ did not err in assessing plaintiff’s credibility. The ALJ’s credibility findings
were based on valid reasons. The ALJ properly considered the inconsistencies between
plaintiff’s subjective allegations and the objective medical evidence. See Ramirez v. Barnhart,
292 F.3d 576, 581 (8th Cir. 2002). Credibility questions concerning a claimant’s subjective
testimony are primarily for the ALJ to decide, not the courts. Baldwin v. Barnhart, 349 F.3d
549, 558 (8th Cir. 2003).
The issue in this case is not whether plaintiff had knee problems, but rather whether
plaintiff’s knee problems caused her to be permanently disabled from working. This Court finds
that despite evidence that might sustain a different finding, the ALJ’s conclusion that plaintiff is
not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act is supported by substantial evidence
in the record as a whole, and therefore, should be affirmed. Baldwin, 349 F.3d at 555 (even if
inconsistent conclusions may be drawn from the evidence, the decision will be affirmed where
the evidence as a whole supports either outcome).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed and
this case is dismissed.
Dated this 13th day of August, 2013, at Jefferson City, Missouri.
Matt J. Whitworth
MATT J. WHITWORTH
United States Magistrate Judge
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?