Tune v. Astrue
ORDER by Judge David P. Rush affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Elayer, Glenda)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
GARY LYNN TUNE,
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of
Case No. 11-3443-CV-DPR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Social Security Disability Insurance
Benefits to Plaintiff Gary Lynn Tune in a decision dated April 26, 2011 (Tr. 14-24). The
Appeals Counsel denied review (Tr. 1-3). Thus, the ALJ’s decision became the Commissioner
of Social Security’s final decision denying Social Security Disability benefits. See 42 U.S.C. §
405(g); 20 C.F.R. § 416.1481. For the reasons set forth below, the decision of the Commissioner
of Social Security is AFFIRMED.
Claimant Tune sought disability benefits alleging back pain and left leg numbness (Tr.
220). Tune alleged his disability began June 7, 2008 (Tr. 216). He claimed past work as a
deckhand and a logger (Tr. 222).
Tune’s medical records show that he injured his back in June 2008 while working as a
deckhand on a barge. After the injury he received four sessions of physical therapy from Ozarks
Medical Center Rehabilitation Services. His physician released him to return to work on July 11,
2008. At his last therapy appointment on July 11, 2008, he rated his pain at zero on a scale from
zero to ten (Tr. 296).
Even after the physical therapy, however, the claimant continued to experience back pain.
On March 4, 2009, Dr. Wade Ceola performed a left L4-5 and left L5-S1 discectomy for nerve
root decompression. The claimant’s preoperative diagnosis was lumbar disc herniation and
lumbar radiculopathy (Tr. 306). In a post-operative visit on April 3, 2009, Tune reported he was
doing well, and that his leg pain was improved. On May 7, 2009, however, he reported continued
low back pain and left leg numbness. A course of aquatherapy gave him minimal relief. He was
prescribed physical therapy three times per week for six weeks, and he was allowed to return to
“light duty” work limited to lifting and pulling no more than twenty pounds. On June 23, 2009,
Dr. Ceola noted “good relief” with the course of physical therapy, although the claimant
complained of continued low back pain and left leg numbness. Dr. Ceola released him to work
without restrictions, but recommended ten percent disability.
On August 12, 2009, Tune
reported continued low back pain and left leg numbness and discomfort with both sitting and
standing. Dr. Ceola referred him to Dr. Lennard for a disability and impairment rating. Dr.
Ceola noted he could return to work with restrictions (Tr. 320-331).
An October 13, 2009, post-operative MRI showed mild degenerative disc bulging at L3L4; prior left hemilaminotomies and posterior discectomies at L4-5 and L5-S1 with
postoperative enhancing granulation tissue at each operative site; no evidence of residual or
recurrent disc protrusion or disc fragments; and L4-5 and L5-S1 facet joint hypertrophy with L4
and L5 neural foraminal encroachment (Tr. 352).
On January 8, 2010, claimant saw Dr. Thomas Brooks at the Center for Advanced Pain
The claimant complained of continued low back and left leg pain.
examination, Dr. Brooks diagnosed lumbar spondylosis, lumbar radiculopathy, and lumbar
postlaminectomy syndrome (Tr. 424-26). Dr. Brooks performed epidural steroid injections on
claimant on January 21 and February 4, 2010 (Tr. 390-408).
Claimant saw Dr. Lewandowski at the Medical Clinic of Willow Springs on April 13,
Claimant complained of depression, low back pain, and left leg numbness.
Lewandowski diagnosed chronic and worsening back pain and prescribed Neurontin for pain.
On May 26, 2010, Dr. Lewandowski noted that the Neurontin was helping claimant with his pain
“somewhat.” He increased the dosage of Neurontin and referred claimant to a neurologist (Tr.
Claimant returned to his neurosurgeon, Dr. Ceola, on June 9, 2010, and complained
continued low back pain and left leg numbness. Claimant reported his pain was worse with
standing and walking.
Dr. Ceola diagnosed ongoing herniated lumbar disc and lumbar
radiculopathy. On July 28, 2010, Dr. Ceola reviewed claimant’s October 2009 MRI. He
concluded there was no showing of “residual or recurrence.” Dr. Ceola noted the possibility of a
spinal cord stimulator. He noticed “no compressive lesion and no instability and would not
rec[ommend] fusion.” He also stated the claimant was “not a candidate for disc replacement.”
He referred the claimant to a pain clinic (Tr. 435-38).
Medical Source Statements
A medical source statement dated December 5, 2010, from Dr. Dorinda Faulker appears
in the record. Dr. Faulkner opined that Claimant could lift and carry five pounds frequently and
fifteen occasionally. He could stand or walk continuously for fifteen minutes, and could stand or
walk two hours total in an eight-hour workday, but would require frequent breaks. She opined
he could sit continuously for only thirty minutes at a time and for a total of three hours in an
eight-hour workday. She opined that he could never climb, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, or
crawl; and could occasionally reach and frequently handle if trunk movement was not required.
She opined that he could frequently finger, feel, see, speak, and hear, although she noted his
hearing is reduced. She also opined that he should avoid any exposure to extreme cold, extreme
heat, vibration, hazards, and heights. She opined that claimant would have to lie down or recline
on the job to alleviate his symptoms of pain frequently, meaning every 30 to 60 minutes for
approximately an hour. She recommended that the Claimant’s limitations would last for at least
twelve months (Tr. 448-49).
Michael Gaddy, a Physician’s Assistant to Dr. Jon W. Rogers, D.O, completed a medical
source statement on November 26, 2010.
Mr. Gaddy, the claimant’s treating Physician’s
Assistant, recommended that the claimant could frequently carry fifteen pounds; stand or walk
continuously for 30 minutes at a time, and for a total of three hours in an eight-hour workday;
and sit continuously for 30 minutes at a time, and for a total of three hours in an eight-hour
workday. He recommended that the claimant’s ability to push and pull would be limited by his
back pain. Mr. Gaddy recommended that the claimant should never climb, stoop, kneel, crouch,
or crawl; could occasionally balance, reach, finger, feel, see, and hear; and could frequently
handle and speak. He further recommended that the claimant avoid any exposure to extreme
cold or heat, weather, wetness or humidity, vibration, hazards, and heights, and avoid moderate
exposure to dust or fumes. He opined that the claimant would be required to lie down or recline
three times per day for two to three hours at a time. He stated that pain limits all of claimant’s
activities. Mr. Gaddy noted that the form was “completed in part as stated by Mr. Tune.” Dr.
Rogers approved of the statement by signing it (Tr. 467-68).
On March 25, 2011, Dr. Ceola, the claimant’s surgeon, made the following updated
The preoperative MRI without contrast from 10/27/2008 showed a broad-based
disc herniation on the right with impingement of the nerve root and effacement of
the neural foramen at L4-5 and also at L5-S1 a focal disc rupture as well. Both of
these caused nerve root impingement and symptoms consistent with nerve root
impingement. Patient underwent a lumbar laminectomy with discectomy. This
corrected the underlying nerve root impingement. Unfortunately, the patient
continued to have ongoing back and nonradicular pain resulting in the inability to
ambulate effectively, so the patient would qualify for 1.04 with herniated nucleus
pulposus and neural foraminal stenosis and nerve root compromise
preoperatively. Postoperatively, would qualify under the pseudoclaudication but
without radicular pain and resulting in his inability to ambulate effectively and
need for frequent position changes as well.
Dr. Faulkner reviewed the claimant’s records again and on March 30, 2011, stated:
“Within a reasonable degree of Medical Certainty, I am of the opinion that Gary Lynn Tune . . .
meets the required physical impairments of the above Listing 1.04 Disorder of the Spine” (Tr.
Dr. Allan N. Levine reviewed the claimant’s medical records for the agency.
December 10, 2010, Dr. Levine opined that the claimant’s impairments do not meet or equal
Listing 1.04 for disorders of the spine because his records do not show current evidence of nerve
root or spinal cord compromise required in the listing. Dr. Levine determined the claimant could
lift 25 pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently; sit for six in an eight-hour workday (with
customary breaks); stand for four hours in an eight-hour workday, but less than 45 minutes at
one time; walk for two hours in an eight-hour workday, but less than 30 minutes at a time;
manipulate stairs or ramps, kneel, crouch, and stoop occasionally, but not repetitively; and push
and pull up to 30 pounds. Dr. Levine recommended that the claimant avoid ladder or scaffolds,
crawling, unprotected heights, heavy vibratory machinery, or extreme cold exposure (Tr. 463-
Claimant Tune appeared in person at a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) on December 9, 2010 (Tr. 47-82). He was represented by counsel, who argued that the
claimant’s impairments met Listing 1.04, and that he is not capable of even sedentary work.
The claimant testified he drives short distances two or three times per week to shop, but
is unable to work due to back pain. The claimant testified that Dr. Faulkner examined him only
once. Claimant opined that he could lift about seven pounds and could walk approximately a
quarter mile, could stand for fifteen or twenty minutes, and could sit for about twenty or thirty
minutes. He also stated he has trouble hearing and seeing. He reported that he owns a hearing
aid, but doesn’t wear it. He testified that he lies down 80 percent of the time, and is unable to do
any house work, including laundry and cooking. He testified that he can go shopping for 15 or
20 minutes before he must sit down. He testified that Dr. Brooks recommended the placement of
a spinal stimulator in his back, but he could not afford it.
A vocational expert, Janice Hastert also testified at the hearing. She testified that an
individual of the claimant’s age, education, and work experience, who could perform sedentary
work, but could not climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, and could not crawl or crouch; could
occasionally climb stairs and ramps, and occasionally balance, stoop, or kneel, but would need to
avoid concentrated exposure to extreme cold, extreme heat, excessive vibration, moving
machinery, and unprotected heights, and could not perform jobs that require fine hearing, would
not be able to perform the claimant’s past work as a deckhand or a logger, but could perform
sedentary, unskilled work such as a document preparer, semiconductor loader, or eyeglass
polisher. Upon questioning from the claimant’s attorney, the vocational expert testified that a
claimant who required work breaks of up to an hour during the workday would be precluded
from all work.
A second ALJ hearing was held on March 31, 2011, for the purpose of introducing the
updated medical statements from Dr. Levine, Dr. Ceola, and Dr. Faulkner (Tr. 30-47).
The ALJ rendered a decision denying benefits on April 26, 2011 (Tr. 14-24). The ALJ
found that the claimant had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since June 7, 2008, his
alleged disability onset date.
The ALJ found that the claimant had the following severe
impairments: status post L4-5 discectomy, left-side lumbar radiculopathy, L4-5 disc protrusion
and L5-S1 disc herniation, each complicated by obesity (Tr. 16).1 The ALJ found, however, that
the claimant’s impairments do not meet or medically equal an impairment or impairments listed
in the regulations.
The ALJ found that the claimant had the Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) to perform
light work, as defined in the regulations, except he can lift and carry up to ten pounds frequently
and 25 pounds occasionally; push and pull up to 30 pounds; sit for six hours in an eight-hour
day, with customary breaks; stand for four hours in an eight-hour day, but for less than 45
minutes at a time; and walk for two hours in an eight-hour day, but for less than 30 minutes at a
time. The ALJ found that the claimant could climb stairs and ramps occasionally and perform
occasional crouching and stooping, but not repetitively. The ALJ further found that the claimant
should avoid work around ladders, scaffolds, crawling, unprotected heights, vibratory machinery,
The ALJ found not severe the claimant’s hearing loss because it causes no more than the
minimal functional limitations to his ability to complete work related activity; not severe the
claimant’s depression and anxiety because they had not resulted in marked limitations or
repeated episodes of decompensation; and non-medically determinable his far sightedness (Tr.
and exposure to extreme cold, was limited to occupations that do not require fine hearing ability,
but had unlimited use of his upper extremities for fine and gross manipulation.
In making the RFC determination, the ALJ found not credible the claimant’s subjective
statements of pain and other symptoms.
The ALJ noted the claimant’s minimal use of
medications, his daily activities, and his work history in discounting his credibility. The ALJ
also discounted the opinions regarding disability expressed by Dr. Ceola and Dr. Faulkner
because their opinions were inconsistent with the objective medical evidence, and based largely
upon the claimant’s subjective complaints. The ALJ followed the opinion of Dr. Levine, an
agency consulting physician, because Dr. Levine was more familiar with the listings, and his
opinion more accurately reflected the objective medical evidence.
Standard of Review
To receive disability benefits, a claimant must be “disabled.” A disabled person is one
whose physical or mental impairments result from anatomical, physiological, or psychological
abnormalities which can be demonstrated by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory
diagnostic techniques and which prevent the person from performing previous work and any
other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. §§
423(d)(1)(A), 423(d)(2)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(B), 1382c(a)(3)(D).
The Social Security regulations provide for a five-step sequential inquiry for determining
whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. The Commissioner must
consider in sequence: (1) whether the claimant is currently employed and doing substantial
gainful activity, (2) whether the claimant has a severe medically determinable physical or mental
impairment or combination of impairments, (3) whether the impairment meets or equals one
listed by the Commissioner and whether it meets the duration requirement, (4) whether the
claimant has the residual functional capacity to return to doing his or her past work, and (5)
whether the claimant is capable of making an adjustment to some other type of work available in
the national economy. See Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 24-25 (2003); Goff v. Barnhart, 421
F.3d 785, 790 (8th Cir. 2005). If the claimant does not have a listed impairment, but cannot
perform his or her past work, then the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five to show that
the claimant can perform some other job that exists in the national economy. Id.
Judicial review of a denial of disability benefits is limited to whether there is substantial
evidence on the record as a whole to support the Social Security Administration’s decision. 42
U.S.C. § 405(g); Minor v. Astrue, 574 F.3d 625, 627 (8th Cir. 2009). Substantial evidence is
“‘such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’”
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. V. NLRB,
305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)).
“Substantial evidence on the record as a whole,” however,
requires a more exacting analysis, which also takes into account “whatever in the record fairly
detracts from its weight.” Minor, 574 F.3d at 627 (quoting Wilson v. Sullivan, 886 F.2d 172,
175 (8th Cir. 1989)). Thus, where it is possible to draw two inconsistent conclusions from the
evidence, and one conclusion represents the ALJ’s findings, a court must affirm the decision.
See Robinson v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 836, 838 (8th Cir. 1992) (citing Cruse v. Bowen, 867 F.2d
1183, 1184 (8th Cir. 1989)). In other words, a court should not disturb an ALJ’s denial of
benefits if the decision “falls within the available zone of choice.” Buckner v. Astrue, 646 F.3d
549, 556 (8th Cir. 2011). A decision may fall within the “zone of choice” even where the
court “might have reached a different conclusion had [the court] been the initial finder of fact.”
Id. (quoting Bradley v. Astrue, 528 F.3d 1113, 1115 (8th Cir. 2008)).
In this appeal, the claimant argues that the ALJ erred 1) in not finding Claimant disabled
based upon the listings; 2) in failing to properly consider the claimant’s obesity; and 3) in
discounting the claimant’s credibility.
Meeting or Equaling a Listing
A claimant is eligible for benefits if he or she has a condition that “meets or equals” an
impairment designated by the Commissioner. The listing of impairments, found at 20 C.F.R. Pt.
404, Subpt. P, App. 1, includes specific criteria for each designated impairment. If a claimant
meets the criteria for a given impairment, the agency presumes he or she is disabled. See 20
C.F.R. § 1520. A claimant may also show disability presumptively by demonstrating that his or
her symptoms are equal in severity to those described in a listing. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1526. The
Eighth Circuit holds that an ALJ does not err by failing to explain why an impairment does not
equal a listed impairment, “as long as the overall conclusion is supported by the record.”
Boettcher v. Astrue, 652 F.3d 860, 863 (8th Cir. 2011). To meet or equal a listing, a claimant’s
impairment “must meet all of the specified medical criteria” established by the Commissioner.
Jones v. Astrue, 619 F.3d 963, 969 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Brown ex rel. Williams v. Barnhart,
388 F.3d 1150, 1152 (8th Cir. 2004)).
As relevant here, Listing 1.04, for disorders of the spine, requires evidence of the
compromise of a nerve root or the spinal cord with either nerve root compression “characterized
by neuro-anatomic distribution of pain, limitation of motion of the spine, motor loss (atrophy
with associated muscle weakness or muscle weakness) accompanied by sensory or reflex loss
and, if there is involvement of the lower back, positive straight-leg raising test (sitting and
supine)” 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, Listing 1.04A, or “spinal stenosis resulting in
pseudoclaudication, established by findings on appropriate medically acceptable imaging,
manifested by chronic nonradicular pain and weakness, and resulting in inability to ambulate
effectively,” Listing 1.04C.
The ALJ discussed Listing 1.04 at two points in her opinion. At step 3 of the analysis,
the ALJ described the criteria necessary to meet or equal a listing, then stated, “I have reviewed
all of the evidence and concludes [sic] that the claimant’s severe impairments do not meet or
equal the severity of any listing” (Tr. 17). The ALJ again considered Listing 1.04 in her
discussion of the claimant’s RFC. The ALJ acknowledged that Dr. Faulkner opined that the
claimant’s impairments were of the severity contemplated by the listing. The ALJ gave little
weight to Dr. Faulkner’s opinion, however, because there was no evidence that Dr. Faulkner had
examined the claimant and her opinion was based only upon the reports of treating and
examining physicians. The ALJ further found that there was no evidence that Dr. Faulkner was
familiar with the Commissioner’s listing of impairments (Tr. 21-22). The ALJ also discredited
Dr. Ceola’s post-surgical opinion (which also recommended that the claimant’s impairments met
or equaled the listing) because it was “based largely on the claimant’s subjective complaints”
Instead, the ALJ gave great weight to the opinion of the non-treating, non-examining,
consulting physician Dr. Levine, because she believed Dr. Levine to be the most familiar with
the Social Security Listings, and his opinion most consistent with the medical record. The ALJ
noted that Dr. Levine did not review the updated opinions of Dr. Faulkner and Dr. Ceola, but
determined that to be of little consequence because as opinions, they were not objective medical
In determining whether a claimant’s impairments are medically equivalent to a listed
impairment, the regulations direct the ALJ to consider all the evidence in the record, including
objective medical evidence and the opinions of medical experts. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1526.
Generally the opinion of a treating physician is given controlling weight so long as the opinion is
“well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not
inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.” Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010,
1012-13 (8th Cir. 2000) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). An ALJ may discount the
opinion of a treating physician, however, when other medical opinions are better supported by
medical evidence, or where a treating physician renders inconsistent opinions. Anderson v.
Astrue, 696 F.3d 790, 793 (8th Cir. 2012) (citing Wildman v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 959, 964 (8th Cir.
2010)). Generally, the opinions of examining medical sources are given greater weight than the
opinions of non-examining sources, and the opinions of specialists in a medical sub-field are
given greater weight than those of non-specialists. Any medical opinion regarding disability
may be discounted by the ALJ, however, because the determination whether an individual is
disabled is left to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1). In determining whether a
claimant is disabled, an ALJ is directed to evaluate the opinion of a consulting physician based
upon the evidence in the record and upon the source’s area of specialty or expertise in the
listings. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2)(ii). Regardless of the source of the opinion, the ALJ must
explain and give good reasons for the weight accorded to the various opinions. Id.
Here, the ALJ gave the greatest weight to the opinion of Dr. Levine, a non-treating, nonexamining physician who only reviewed the claimant’s medical records. In so doing, the ALJ
rejected the opinions of the claimant’s treating surgeon, Dr. Ceola, and of an examining
physician, Dr. Faulkner. As stated above, the ALJ was free to give greater weight to Dr.
Levine’s opinion, as long as she articulated the basis for the weight given to the opinion and the
reasons for discounting the opinion of the treating and examining physicians. The Court finds
that the ALJ sufficiently explained her reasoning in finding that the claimant’s impairments did
not meet or equal Listing 1.04. Even if the Court disagreed with the weight afforded to these
opinions, the Court is bound to affirm an ALJ’s decision that is supported by substantial
evidence. See Robinson, 886 F.2d at 175 (where it is possible to draw two inconsistent
conclusions from evidence, and one conclusion represents ALJ’s findings, count must affirm
ALJ’s decision). For these reasons, the Court finds the ALJ did not err in crediting the opinion
of Dr. Levine over the opinions of Dr. Ceola and Dr. Faulkner.
The claimant also argues that the ALJ failed to properly consider obesity in calculating
the claimant’s RFC. An ALJ need only reference a claimant’s obesity to avoid reversal. See
Heino v. Astrue, 578 F.3d 873, 881 (8th Cir. 2009) (citing Brown ex rel. Williams v. Barnhart,
388 F.3d 1150, 1153 (8th Cir. 2004)).
Here, the ALJ noted the claimant’s obesity, and
determined that his obesity “contributes to the severity of his impairments” (Tr. 16, 19). The
ALJ then discussed at length the claimant’s complaints and the severity of his impairments. The
Court finds these references to the claimant’s obesity and its effect the severity of his
impairments were sufficient to show that the ALJ considered the claimant’s obesity in
determining his RFC.
In assessing a claimant’s credibility, an ALJ must consider 1) the claimant’s daily
activities; 2) the duration, intensity, and frequency of pain; 3) the precipitating and aggravating
factors; 4) the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; 5) any functional
restrictions; 6) the claimant’s work history; and 7) the absence of objective medical evidence to
support the claimant’s complaints. Buckner, 646 F.3d at 558 (quoting Moore v. Astrue, 572
F.3d 520, 524 (8th Cir. 2009)); Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984). An
ALJ is not required to explicitly discuss each Polaski factor, so long as the ALJ acknowledges
and considers them before discounting a claimant’s subjective complaints. See Wildman v.
Astrue, 596 F.3d 959, 968 (8th Cir. 2010). An ALJ may find a claimant’s allegations not
credible where there exist “inconsistencies in the record as a whole.” Id. A court will defer to
an ALJ’s credibility determination “if the ALJ ‘explicitly discredits a claimant’s testimony and
gives a good reason for doing so.’” Id. (quoting Schultz v. Astrue, 479 F.3d 979, 983 (8th Cir.
Substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the ALJ’s determination that the
claimant’s subjective complaints are not credible. The ALJ considered the factors set out in
Polaski, including the claimant’s activities, pain, precipitating and aggravating factors,
medications, functional limitations, work history, and available medical evidence. The ALJ
specifically identified inconsistencies between the claimant’s testimony regarding his pain and
his report that he is capable of routinely feeding his goats and chickens, going outside two or
three times per day, shopping for groceries, and driving two to three times per week. The
ALJ further pointed out that despite his complaints of intense pain, the claimant has used very
few medications, and that despite being released for light duty work by his physician, he never
attempted to gain employment after July 2008.
Both of these facts weighed against the
claimant’s credibility. In the Court’s view, these constitute “good reasons” for discounting the
claimant’s testimony regarding his subjective complaints. Thus, the Court finds no basis in the
record to overturn the ALJ’s credibility determination.
Based upon a thorough review of the record, the Court finds the ALJ’s decision is
supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Accordingly, the decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security should be affirmed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 11, 2013
/s/ David P. Rush
DAVID P. RUSH
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?