Justice v. Berryhill

Filing 30

ORDER granting 25 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and denying 22 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Chief Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 12/2/2018. (Stouch, L.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
No. 7:17-CV-150-BO
STACIE JUSTICE,
Plaintiff,
V.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner ofSocial Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the parties' cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings
[DE 22, 25]. The motions have been fully briefed and are ripe for disposition. A hearing on this
matter was held in Raleigh, North Carolina on November 16, 2018. For the reasons discussed
below, plaintiff's motion is DENIED and defendant's motion is GRANTED. The decision of the
Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brought this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) for review of the
final decision of the Commissioner denying her claim for disability and disability insurance
benefits (DIB) pursuant to Title II of the Social Security Act. Plaintiff applied for DIB and a period
of disability on May 20, 2013. [Tr. 1O]. Plaintiff asserted that _she became unable to work on July
17, 2009, but later amended her onset date to December 30, 2011. [Tr. 46, 214-15]. On December
29, 2011, plaintiff received a prior final administrative determination that she was not disabled,·
and the Eastern District ofNorth Carolina affirmed. [Tr. 97-113; No. 7:13-CV-107-D].
After plaintiff's application was denied both initially and upon reconsideration, she timely
requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). [Tr. 10, 118-56, 159-78]. A hearing

was held before an ALJ on September 18, 2015. [Tr. 10, 42-96]. The ALJ issued a decision in
March 2016, finding that plaintiff was not disabled. [Tr. 7-9]. In May 2017, the Appeals Council
denied plaintiffs request for review. [Tr. 1-6].
In July 2017, plaintiff filed the complaint at issue, seeking judicial review of the
Commissioner's final decision under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). [DE 1]. Plaintiff and
defendant then filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings which

h~ve

been fully briefed

and are ripe for disposition. [DE 22, 25].
DISCUSSION
Under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), this Court's review of
the Commissioner's decision is limited to determining whether the decision, as a whole, is
supported by substantial evidence and whether the Commissioner employed the correct legal
standard. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). Substantial evidence is "such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Johnson v.
Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
'---

Courts should not make their own credibility determinations or substitute their own judgments for
the judgments of the ALJs. Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d 288, 296 (4th Cir. 2013).
An individual is considered disabled if he is unable "to engage in any substantial gainful
activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be
expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period
of not less than [twelve] months." 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act further provides that an
individual "shall be determined to be under a disability only if his phy~ical or mental impairment
or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot,

2

considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other line of substantial gainful
work which exists in the national economy." 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(B).
Regulations issued by the Commissioner establish a five-step sequential evaluation process
to be followed in a disability case. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). The claimant bears
the burden of proof at steps one through four, but the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step
five. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987). If a decision regarding disability can be
made at any step of the process, then the inquiry ceases. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4),
416.920(a)(4). In this case, the ALJ's inquiry ended at step five when he concluded that, although
plaintiff was unable to perform any of her past relevant work activities, she was able to perform
other work that existed in significant numbers in the national economy. [Tr. 26-28]. In other
words, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff was not disabled under the Social Security Act.
Plaintiff alleges that the ALJ erred by (1) finding that plaintiffs impairment did not meet
section 1.02 of the Listings, (2) failing to properly weigh the treating source opinions, and (3)
failing to include all of plaintiffs limitations in assessing her residual functional capacity. But a
careful review of the record and the ALJ's decision shows that the decision was properly supported
by substantial evidence and that remand would not be appropriate.

I. Section 1.02 of the Listi.ngs
Plaintiff first argues that the ALJ erred by determining that she did not meet or equal Listing
1.02. But the ALJ did specifically consider the applicability of Listing 1.02, determining that
plaintiff did not meet or equal its requirements. 1.02 is categorized as a "[m]ajor dysfunction of a
joint(s) (due to any cause)" and is "[c]haracterized by gross anatomical deformity (e.g.,
subluxation, contracture, bony or fibrous ankyloses, instability) and chronic joint pain and
stiffness," resulting in an "inability to ambulate effectively." 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App'x

3

1

1, § 1.02. Substantial evidence exists in the record to support the ALJ's finding that plaintiff is
able to "ambulate effectively" under 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App'x 1, § 1.00B(2)(b). The
ALJ noted plaintiffs arthrogryposis multiplex congenital disease multiple times and consistently
recognized the difficulties the disease caused for her. [Tr. 16, 18-22]. The ALJ also considered the
knee pain that plaintiff alleged, plaintiffs ability to ambulate as described by her doctors, the fact
that plaintiff had not been prescribed a cane, and the fact that several medical examinations
described plaintiffs gait as only "moderate[ly]" antalgic. [Tr. 22, 26, 525, 545, 555, 565, 568, 573,
580, 583, 586, 589, 591, 663, 667, 670, 675]. In sum, despite some evidence to support plaintiffs
knee pain and swelling, substantial evidence exists to support the ALJ' s finding that plaintiff was
able to "ambulate effectively" and that, therefore, plaintiff did not meet or equal Listing 1.02.
II. Treating Source Opinions
In deciding whether a claimant is disabled, an ALJ must always consider the medical
opinions in the case record together with the rest of the relevant evidence received. 20 C.F.R.

§§ 404.1527(a)(2)(b), 416.927(a)(2)(b). 1A medical opinion is a statement "from physicians and
psychologists or other acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and
severity of [a claimant's] impairment(s), including [the claimant's] symptoms, diagnosis and
prognosis, what [she] can still do despite impairment(s), and [her] physical or mental restrictions."
20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). Treating source opinions are entitled to controlling weight if they are
"well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [are]
not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record." 20 C.F.R.
I

1

In January 2017, the Social Security Administration published final rules titled "Revisions to
Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence." 82 Fed. Reg. 5844; see also 82 Fed. Reg.
15132 (March 27, 2017) (amending and correcting the final rules published at 82 Fed. Reg.
5844). Because these final rules did not become effective until after the ALJ's decision, they do
not apply in this case, and the citations in this order are to the rules in effect at the time of the
ALJ' s decision.
4

§§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). An ALJ's determination "as to the weight to be assigned to a

medical opinion generally will not be disturbed absent some indication that the ALJ has dredged
up 'specious inconsistencies,' ... or has failed to give a sufficient reason for the weight afforded
a particular opinion." Dunn v. Colvin, 607 F. App'x 264, 267 (4th Cir. 2015). Factors that ALJs
consider in determining how much weight to afford a medical opinion include (1) the examining
relationship, (2) the treatment relationship, (3) the supportability of the opinion, (4) the consistency
of the opinion with the record as a whole, (5) the physician's specialization, and (6) other relevant
factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).
Substantial evidence supports the ALJ's assessment of the medical opinions. Plaintiff
argues that the ALJ erred. in not properly delineating the opinions of treating physicians before
determining how much weight to give them, and then erred in "discount[ing] the opinion of Dr.
Garrett." [DE 23, p. 11-12]. First, and in general, the ALJ gave reasons for the limited weight he
assigned to certain medical opinions, often because they were from the wrong year or because they
were void of analysis as to how the conclusions were reached. [Tr. 24]. Second, the ALJ did not
err in discounting Dr. Garrett's opinion because he determined that, while the opinion reflected
plaintiffs impairment, it did not explain how that impairment rendered plaintiff legally disabled
for the purposes of the Social Security Act. Dr. Garrett also noted that he considered plaintiff
disabled at the time of the examination, which was in January 2014; plaintiff then underwent
treatment and in Dr. Garrett's later opinion he never suggested that plaintiff was still disabled. [Tr.
390, 396-98, 406, 619, 663, 667, 670]; see Gross v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 1163, 1166 (4th Cir. 1986)
("If a symptom can be reasonably controlled by medication or treatment, it is not disabling.").

Third, the ALJ committed no reversible error in referencing (and affording minimal weight to) a
treating physician's opinion from years prior to the onset date that had been included in the

5

transcript of the prior case. Overall, substantial evidence exists in the record to support the ALJ's
assessments of the treating source opinions.
III. Residual Functional Capacity
Plaintiff argues that, due to the ALJ's "failure to properly evaluate the opinion evidence in
this matter, the ALJ failed to include all of [plaintiff's] limitations in the residual functional
capacity he presented to the vocational expert." [DE 23, p. 13]. More specifically, plaintiff takes
issue with the ALJ discounting Dr. Blair's opinion of plaintiff's limitations regarding the need to
elevate her legs and use a cane. Id. But, as noted above, the ALJ provided sufficient reasons for
not giving Dr. Blair's opinion greater weight; with Dr. Blair's opinion, in particular, the opinion
was established at least eight months after plaintiff's date last insured. [Tr. 24, 64~ 7]. Substantial
evidence also existed elsewhere in the record that contradicted Dr. Blair's opinion. [Tr. 22, 663,
667, 670]. Substantial evidence existed in the record to support the ALJ' s assessment of plaintiff's
residual functional capacity.
CONCLUSION
Having conducted a full review of the record and decision in this matter, the Court finds
that the decision as a whole is supported by substantial evidence and that the correct legal standard
was applied. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings [DE 22] is DENIED
and defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings [DE 25] is GRANTED .. The decision of the
Commissioner is AFFIRMED. The Clerk is directed to close the file.

SO ORDERED, this~ day of December, 2018.

~M
w.

TRRENcE
BOYLE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6