Gatson v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 23

Memorandum Opinion and Order reversing the decision of the Commissioner and remanding for reconsideration with proper analysis and articulation regarding the limitations. (Related docs # 1 , 11 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge William H. Baughman, Jr on 8/7/18. (H,D)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

STROM YVONNA GATSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:17 CV 1919

MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WILLIAM H. BAUGHMAN, JR.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER

Introduction
Strom Yvonna Gatson sought disability insurance benefits and supplemental security
income because of multiple physical impairments. The Commissioner found Gatson
incapable of performing her past relevant work as a childcare attendant, but found her
capable of performing a significant number of jobs existing in the national economy.1 This
decision lacks the support of substantial evidence in the record. I, therefore, reverse the
Commissioner’s decision and remand for further consideration.2

1

ECF No. 13, Transcript (“Tr.”) at 24-25.

2

The parties have consented to my jurisdiction. ECF No. 11.

Analysis
State agency reviewing physician Michael Delphia, M.D., opined on May 30, 2015,
that Gatson’s ability to handle and finger with her left hand would be limited.3 In the
narrative portion of the RFC analysis in the Disability Determination Explanation, he stated
“no fingering and handling” with the left hand.4 Dr. Delphia also found Gatson’s ability to
push and pull with her left arm to be limited.5 In the narrative, he limited Gatson to “no
push[ing]/pull[ing]” with the left arm.6 The state agency reviewing physicians’ opinions
were the only medical source opinions regarding Gatson’s limitations in the record.7
At the hearing, the ALJ failed to pose a hypothetical to the vocational expert that
incorporated the left upper extremity limitations opined by Dr. Delphia.
The ALJ ultimately gave Dr. Delphia’s opinion great weight8 but did not include any
limitation as to Gaston’s ability to push or pull in the RFC.9 The ALJ also found Gatson

3

Tr. at 94.

4

Id. at 95.

5

Id. at 94.

6

Id.

7

ECF # 18, Attachment 1 (Gatson’s charts) at 6-9; ECF # 19, Attachment 1
(Commissioner’s charts) at 1-4. State agency reviewing physician Abraham Mikalov, M.D.,
opined initially as to Gatson’s limitations and his opinion mirror’s Dr. Delphia’s opinion on
reconsideration. Cf. Tr. at 60-62 with Tr. at 93-95.
8

Id. at 24.

9

Id. at 23.
-2-

capable of occasional handling and fingering with her left hand.10 The ALJ briefly discussed
Gatson’s left upper extremity in his opinion and the neurological status of Gatson’s left
hand.11
The ALJ gave great weight to Dr. Delphia’s opinion but did not adopt his limitations
regarding Gatson’s ability to finger, handle, push, and pull with her left hand and left arm.
The ALJ always must build an “accurate and logical bridge” from the evidence to his
conclusions.12 The ALJ failed to do so here, as his decision lacks adequate articulation for
the departure from the limitations opined by Dr. Dephia. Therefore, the Commissioner’s
decision denying Gatson disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income must
be reversed and remanded. On remand, the ALJ may decide the case by better articulation
of the reasons for the departure from Dr. Delphia’s opinion or by posing a hypothetical to the
VE incorporating Dr. Delphia’s limitations. But it may be preferable for the ALJ to obtain
the opinion of a medical expert who has reviewed all the medical records.

Conclusion
The RFC adopted by the ALJ lacks the support of substantial evidence because the
ALJ did not properly articulate his departure from the limitations in Dr. Delphia’s opinion,
which was given great weight. I, therefore, reverse the decision of the Commissioner

10

Id.

11

Id. at 24.

12

Fleischer v. Astrue, 774 F. Supp. 2d 875, 877 (N.D. Ohio 2011) (internal quotations
omitted).
-3-

denying the application for disability insurance benefits and supplement security income
benefits and remand for reconsideration with proper analysis and articulation regarding the
limitations included in Dr. Delphia’s opinion with the assistance of the opinion of a medical
expert, if appropriate.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2018

s/ William H. Baughman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

-4-