Copfer v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
17
Memorandum Opinion and Order: The Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision. Magistrate Judge Kathleen B. Burke on 1/28/2019. (D, I)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
BRIAN COPFER,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
CASE NO. 1:18-cv-00001
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
KATHLEEN B. BURKE
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
Plaintiff Brian Copfer (“Plaintiff” or “Copfer”) seeks judicial review of the partially
favorable final decision of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant” or
“Commissioner”) finding Copfer disabled after January 2, 2015, but finding Copfer not disabled
during the period April 11, 2012, through January 1, 2015. Doc. 1, Doc. 15, Tr. 24 Thus, at
issue in this case is the Administrative Law Judge’s determination regarding the period April 11,
2012, through January 1, 2015. Tr. 24.
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). This case is before the
undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to the consent of the parties. Doc. 13. For the reasons
set forth below, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s decision.
I. Procedural History
Copfer protectively filed 1 applications for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) in September 2013. Tr. 40, 135, 136. He alleged a
1
The Social Security Administration explains that “protective filing date” is “The date you first contact us about
filing for benefits. It may be used to establish an earlier application date than when we receive your signed
application.” http://www.socialsecurity.gov/agency/glossary/ (last visited 1/28/2019)
1
disability onset date of February 9, 2009. 2 Tr. 24, 335, 342, 379. Copfer alleged disability due
to bipolar disorder, anxiety, depression, tumor in left leg, lipidemia, cellulitis, arthritis in right
leg, ADHD, high cholesterol, and sleep apnea. Tr. 136-137, 220, 238, 383. Copfer’s
applications were denied initially (Tr. 220-228) and upon reconsideration by the state agency
(Tr. 238-244). Thereafter, he requested an administrative hearing. Tr. 250-251. On September
2, 2015, Administrative Law Judge Susan G. Giuffre (“ALJ”) conducted a hearing (Tr. 47-71)
and, on November 12, 2015, the ALJ issued a fully favorable decision, finding Copfer disabled
from April 11, 2012, through the date of the decision (Tr. 191-201). In its notice dated January
11, 2016, the Appeals Council advised Copfer that it had, on its own, reviewed the ALJ’s
November 12, 2015, decision. Tr. 202-207. On March 7, 2016, the Appeals Council vacated
and remanded the ALJ’s November 12, 2015, decision. Tr. 208-215. The basis of the remand
was the need for further development of the date when Copfer required use of a cane for
ambulation. Tr. 23, 211. The Appeals Council found that the ALJ had assessed one RFC for the
entire period at issue but that, while Copfer’s impairments affected use of his legs prior to 2015,
Copfer did not require use of a cane for ambulation during most of the period at issue. Tr. 211.
Following the remand order, on November 1, 2016, the ALJ held a hearing. Tr. 72-110.
Thereafter, the ALJ issued a partially favorable decision on December 30, 2016. Tr. 18-46. In
that decision, the ALJ found Copfer disabled after January 2, 2015, but found him not disabled
2
Copfer filed an earlier application for disability benefits in 2011. Tr. 114. That application was denied initially
and on reconsideration. Tr. 114. Copfer requested a hearing before an administrative law judge and the hearing was
held in March 2012. Tr. 23, 114. That application was denied in a decision dated April 12, 2012 (Tr. 24), which
was affirmed by the Appeals Council in 2013 and later affirmed by the United States District Court in 2014. Tr. 24,
49. As indicated in the December 30, 2012, Notice of Decision – Partially Favorable (the decision under review by
this Court), due to the decision in the earlier case, the earliest onset date available to Copfer in this case is April 11,
2012. Tr. 24. Copfer does not challenge this determination.
2
prior to January 2, 2015. Tr. 24. Copfer requested review of the ALJ’s December 30, 2016,
decision by the Appeals Council. Tr. 333-334. On November 29, 2017, the Appeals Council
denied Copfer’s request for review, making the ALJ’s December 30, 2016, decision the final
decision of the Commissioner. Tr. 1-5.
II. Evidence 3
A.
Personal, vocational and educational evidence
Copfer was born in 1961. Tr. 136, 335. He lived with his wife in an apartment. Tr. 57.
Copfer graduated high school but was in special education classes in school. Tr. 59, 84.
Copfer’s past work included work as a coil winder and general laborer (assembler position). Tr.
52-53.
B.
Medical evidence 4
Treatment notes contain reports indicating that Copfer had a large sarcoma (about the
size of a football) removed from his left thigh in 2007. Tr. 745, 924, 1055. After removal of the
tumor, Copfer developed lymphedema in his left lower extremity (Tr. 854, 1055) and a history of
cellulitis in his left lower extremity (Tr. 924, 927, 1031). Copfer also has a history of right knee
pain. Tr. 745.
On December 19, 2012, Copfer presented to MetroHealth’s urgent care clinic for right
knee pain. Tr. 745. Copfer relayed that his pain was worse at the end of the day after he had
been walking around. Tr. 745. He denied swelling or locking but had some crepitus. Tr. 745.
Copfer indicated that he had been using his right knee to compensate for the surgery he
3
Copfer alleged disability based on physical and mental health impairments. However, the arguments raised in this
administrative appeal relate only to the ALJ’s consideration of Copfer’s physical impairments. Accordingly, while
Copfer’s brief contains a section regarding the mental health impairment evidence (Doc. 15, pp. 8-9), the evidence
summarized herein generally pertains to Copfer’s alleged physical impairments.
4
Neither parties’ statement of facts detail the medical opinion evidence. Accordingly, that evidence is not included
herein.
3
previously had on his left leg for removal of the sarcoma. Tr. 745. Copfer was not taking overthe-counter medication, using a brace or elevating his leg. Tr. 746. An x-ray of the right knee
showed no fracture or dislocation; the joint space was maintained; vascular calcification was
seen; and a small joint effusion was noted. Tr. 625. A physical examination on the left revealed
lower extremity edema, knee effusion, and no tenderness to palpation. Tr. 747. The physical
examination on the right revealed tenderness to palpation on the medial and lateral knee, good
flexion, reduced extension to 180 degrees, and no effusion. Tr. 747. Copfer was advised to take
Naprosyn, rest, apply ice, and elevate his knee daily. Tr. 747. If his symptoms did not improve
in two weeks, he should follow up with orthopedic surgery. Tr. 747.
On January 14, 2013, Copfer saw Dr. Seth Richman, M.D., at MetroHealth for an
orthopedic consultation regarding his right knee pain. Tr. 740-742. Dr. Richman noted Copfer’s
past medical history, including depression, obesity, HLD and a large sarcoma resection from the
left thigh in 2007. Tr. 740. Copfer explained that his pain was worse when not moving for a
period of time and he felt stiff and it was difficult for him to climb stairs. Tr. 740. Copfer also
explained that his knee would painlessly pop from time to time. Tr. 740. He denied any
catching or locking of his knee. Tr. 740. Copfer had tried Naprosyn for two weeks without
relief. Tr. 741. He felt he was compensating a lot with his right knee because his left knee was
weak. Tr. 741. Dr. Richman observed that Copfer walked with a wide shuffle gait, which he felt
was likely due to left leg weakness and Copfer’s size. Tr. 742. Dr. Richman recommended
Aleve or Tyelol for pain, losing weight, a hinge knee brace for support, and physical therapy for
strengthening and range of motion. Tr. 742. Dr. Richman also offered Copfer a cane but Copfer
declined. Tr. 742. Dr. Richman advised Copfer to follow up in three months if his pain was
unresolved or unchanged for probable cortisone injection. Tr. 742.
4
Copfer started physical therapy on January 17, 2013, and continued with a number of
sessions. Tr. 1034-1058. Following the initial evaluation, the therapist concluded that Copfer’s
prognosis was “poor . . . due to inconsistencies in strength testing, poor effort with exercise, and .
. . insist[ence] on disability.” Tr. 1056. The therapist felt that Copfer could benefit from range
of motion, strengthening of hip, knee, and ankle, flexibility training, gait training with straight
cane, and proprioception training. Tr. 1056. During his final physical therapy visit on February
19, 2013, Copfer reported some improvement in his lower extremity pain level with therapy but
he had some occasional flare ups. Tr. 1031. Copfer relayed that he had to drive to Kentucky a
few days earlier and he was sore and stiff. Tr. 1031. He also reported some intermittent
swelling in his left lower extremity. Tr. 1031. The physical therapist’s assessment was that
Copfer showed some improvement in strength and function but noted that Copfer had been
absent from physical therapy and busy with out-of-town family matters. Tr. 1032. Copfer was
experiencing a flare up because of his long car trip but overall his pain levels were slightly
improved. Tr. 1032. During the session, Copfer exhibited a significant amount of crepitus and
gait dysfunction. Tr. 1032. Copfer was independent in his home exercises. Tr. 1032. The
therapist indicated that the best course of treatment was “daily consistent home management.”
Tr. 1031.
In April 2013, Copfer returned to the orthopedic department at MetroHealth for
evaluation of right knee pain. Tr. 730. Copfer saw Dr. Christopher Bechtel, M.D. Tr. 730. Dr.
Bechtel’s assessment was right knee pain and early radiographic signs of osteoarthritis based on
prior imaging. Tr. 730. Dr. Bechtel noted that Copfer had completed a course of physical
therapy with mild-to-moderate relief but he continued to have pain with activity. Tr. 730. Dr.
Bechtel administered a steroid injection to the right knee; he advised Copfer to continue with his
5
home physical therapy exercises; he stressed the importance of weight loss to help improve his
osteoarthritis symptoms; and he advised Copfer to continue Naproxen as needed. Tr. 730.
On May 26, 2013, Copfer was treated at the emergency room with a rash and increased
warmth to his left lower extremity. Tr. 849. Copfer was able to move all four extremities, there
was no edema and no calf tenderness. Tr. 850-851. Examination of Copfer’s left lower
extremity revealed no obvious deformity, a well healed wound from the left hip extending down
to the knee on the medial aspect; and no drainage, fluctuance, or increased warmth of the healed
wound. Tr. 850. On the lower half of the left leg, there were patchy medial areas of erythema
and increased warmth from the left knee extending down the left ankle; there was no fluctuance,
crepitus, or drainage; distal capillary refill took less than 2 seconds; pulses were 2+ bilaterally;
and distal sensation and motor was intact. Tr. 851. Copfer was admitted for further stabilization
and evaluation with the impression being left lower extremity cellulitis. Tr. 851. Copfer was
discharged with antibiotics and instructions to follow up with his primary care physician in 3-5
days. Tr. 851-852.
On May 31, 2013, Copfer was seen at the urgent care clinic for follow up regarding his
left lower extremity cellulitis. Tr. 924-925. When discharged from the emergency room, Copfer
had been prescribed a 7-day course of antibiotics. Tr. 924. At his follow-up visit, the physical
examination showed minimal erythema, no significant tenderness, and no induration. Tr. 927.
An additional dose of antibiotics was prescribed and Copfer was advised to continue using
compression stockings/elevation. Tr. 927.
On June 28, 2013, Copfer was treated at the urgent care clinic for an abrasion on his left
lower limb. Tr. 933-938. Copfer relayed that he had been injured about a week prior when he
was trying to unload building materials off his brother’s truck. Tr. 934. He was concerned about
6
the coloring of the wound and the burning sensation that he was experiencing. Tr. 934. Copfer
was prescribed Bactrim for the wound. Tr. 935. Copfer returned to the clinic for follow up
regarding his leg wound reporting that he had finished his course of antibiotics but the wound
had not changed in size. Tr. 940. The wound was not affecting his mobility. Tr. 940. The
treating doctor advised Copfer that it was unlikely that the wound was infected and it could take
several weeks for it to heal completely. Tr. 941. He was advised to follow up with his primary
care physician. Tr. 941.
On July 31, 2013, Copfer saw Dr. Lewis, his primary care physician, for a routine follow
up. Tr. 945. Copfer complained of left shoulder pain. Tr. 945. Dr. Lewis’ physical
examination of Copfer’s extremities showed no lower extremity edema, no cyanosis and
extremity strength was normal. Tr. 947. Physical examination of Copfer’s left shoulder showed
the left shoulder was symmetric without warmth or erythema, no crepitus or effusion, and no
range of motion limitations. Tr. 947. Copfer’s pain was focused at the acromial head. Tr. 947.
Dr. Lewis noted that Copfer’s acquired lymphedema of leg was stable and he should continue to
use compression hose. Tr. 948. Dr. Lewis indicated that Copfer’s shoulder pain was likely
acromial bursitis. Tr. 948. Dr. Lewis recommended that Copfer try Mobic since he did not have
success with Naproxen and, if his shoulder was not improved at the next visit, they would
consider a referral for arthritis/joint injection. Tr. 948.
On August 21, 2013, Copfer saw Dr. Lewis for a non-healing wound on his right shin.
Tr. 965. Copfer had dropped a small log on his shin and it scraped his leg. Tr. 965. Dr. Lewis
prescribed Bacitracin and recommended that Copfer follow up if the problem did not resolve.
Tr. 968.
7
Physical examination findings from an October 29, 2013, follow-up sleep visit, showed
that Copfer had a normal gait and no lower extremity edema, cyanosis, or clubbing. Tr. 978.
Copfer was advised to lose weight. Tr. 978. Copfer was not motivated to change his diet and
noted physical constraints due to pain. Tr. 978.
Copfer saw Dr. Lewis for a routine follow-up visit on November 20, 2013. Tr. 982-988.
Copfer complained of left shoulder pain. Tr. 982. Copfer had not taken the Mobic. Tr. 982. He
felt that it did not help. Tr. 982. Copfer indicated he felt his friend’s narcotics helped. Tr. 982.
Dr. Lewis advised that narcotics were not appropriate. Tr. 982. Copfer had some knee pain but
it was stable. Tr. 982. Dr. Lewis’ physical examination showed no lower extremity edema or
cyanosis and Copfer’s extremity strength was 5/5. Tr. 984. Copfer had left shoulder point
tenderness. Tr. 984. Dr. Lewis noted that Copfer’s acquired lymphedema of leg was stable and
he should continue with compression. Tr. 985. Dr. Lewis referred Copfer to physical therapy
for his shoulder and prescribed Celebrex. Tr. 985.
During a routine follow-up visit with Dr. Lewis on June 4, 2014, Copfer complained of
right knee pain. Tr. 1142. Dr. Lewis noted that a prior x-ray was within normal limits, with the
exception of a small effusion. Tr. 1142. Copfer reported that Celebrex had helped but it was
hurting his back so he stopped taking it. Tr. 1142. A physical examination of Copfer’s
extremities showed no lower extremity edema, no cyanosis, and 5/5 strength. Tr. 1144. Dr.
Lewis assessed obesity, hyperlipidemia, and osteoarthritis in right knee due to age and body
habitus. Tr. 1145. Dr. Lewis noted that Copfer had refused weight management for his obesity.
Tr. 1145. Dr. Lewis referred Copfer to physical therapy and prescribed Mobic for his
osteoarthritis. Tr. 1145. He advised Copfer to return to see him in three months if the symptoms
did not resolve or worsened. Tr. 1145.
8
Copfer started physical therapy for his osteoarthritis on June 12, 2014. Tr. 1150-1157.
He continued with physical therapy through July 17, 2014, attending a total of nine sessions. Tr.
1159-1164, 1165-1170, 1171-1176, 1192-1198, 1199-1205, 1215-1221, 1222-1228, 1235-1241.
At the initial visit, Copfer reported being able to drive independently and he was independent
with self-care and activities of daily living but he had difficulty with squatting. Tr. 1151.
Copfer’s knee pain was aching and intermittent and his average pain level was 4/10 and his
worse pain level was 6/10. Tr. 1151. The pain level and amount of swelling in his knee varied
depending on his level of activity. Tr. 1152. Copfer relayed that his pain increased with
climbing stairs, prolonged walking (more than 15 minutes), bending, standing (more than 60
minutes), sitting too long, and transitioning between sitting and standing. Tr. 1152. His pain
decreased with medication. Tr. 1152. On physical examination, the therapist observed
decreased weight bearing on the left lower extremity; tenderness to palpation at the right diffuse
knee; mild edema on the right; sensation intact to light touch in right lower extremity but
decreased to light touch on the left lower leg anteriorly. Tr. 1152. Copfer ambulated
independently without an assistive device but his gait was antalgic. Tr. 1153. The therapist
concluded that Copfer had decreased range of motion, strength, and mobility and pain that
limited his ability to function secondary to the underlying condition of osteoarthritis and felt that
Copfer would benefit from physical therapy. Tr. 1153.
During his second physical therapy visit on June 17, 2014, Copfer reported that his pain
level was a 7/10. Tr. 1159. He relayed that he performed approximately 5 hours of yard work
over the weekend and was having some right quad soreness/pain. Tr. 1159. Following the
therapy session, Copfer’s pain had decreased to 0/10 and he had improved right knee flexion
with active range of motion. Tr. 1160. At his third visit, Copfer’s reported pain level was 0/10.
9
Tr. 1165. He relayed that he was feeling much better. Tr. 1165. His walking tolerance was 20
minutes before his left lower extremity became fatigued. Tr. 1165. At his next session on June
24, 2014, Copfer reported that his knee pain was mostly 0/10 but he had been walking very fast
the prior day and was having some increased soreness. Tr. 1171. His reported level of knee pain
at the visit was 2/10 and remained 2/10 following exercises. Tr. 1172. During a June 27, 2014,
session, Copfer’s pain level was reported as “just sore to touch.” Tr. 1192. He was working on
home exercises and doing better. Tr. 1192. The therapist observed mild knee swelling. Tr. 1192.
At his July 1, 2014, session, Copfer reported his pain level as “stiff.” Tr. 1199. He was working
on his home exercises and doing better. Tr. 1199. He was climbing steep stairs at home for
exercise. Tr. 1199. The therapist noted bilateral lower extremity fatigue following standing
exercises and decreased functional strength in the left lower extremity with stair navigation. Tr.
1201. On July 8, 2014, Copfer’s pain level was noted as “just[t] tired.” Tr. 1215. He relayed
that his legs were sore after doing squats. Tr. 1215. At his July 11, 2014, therapy session,
Copfer reported that he was doing pretty good and he was not as tired as the prior session. Tr.
1222. He had been doing his exercises. Tr. 1222. The therapist noted that Copfer continued to
have an antalgic gait. Tr. 1224. Also, it was noted that Copfer was continuing to have difficulty
with 4” step-down height. Tr. 1224. At his final therapy session on July 17, 2014, Copfer
continued to report his pain level as “just tired.” Tr. 1235. He was doing his exercises every
other day or so and feeling tired out. Tr. 1235. Copfer noted he had been feeling depressed and
it was an effort to get through the day. Tr. 1235. The therapist noted that Copfer had not met his
goal of decreasing his pain level to 4/10, 100 % of the time, because, after prolonged upright
activity, Copfer’s pain level was 7-8/10. Tr. 1237. Copfer was still having great difficulty
10
descending stairs and weakness in hip extensors persisted. Tr. 1237. The therapist referred
Copfer back to his primary care physician. Tr. 1237.
During a July 16, 2014, mental health therapy session, Copfer was upset because he and
his brother had to push back a project of working on their deck because the power washer they
bought did not work. Tr. 1229, 1243.
On January 2, 2015, Copfer saw Drs. Yazid Hussein, D.O., 5 and Cheryl Weinstein, M.D.,
at MetroHealth for bilateral lower extremity pain that he had been having for three to four weeks.
Tr. 1396. Copfer denied any weakness or paresthesia. Tr. 1396. Copfer relayed that his left
knee had been giving out on him but he had not had any falls. Tr. 1396. Copfer was requesting
a cane to help him walk. Tr. 1396, 1399. On physical examination, Copfer had good peripheral
pulses in his extremities and he had 5/5 strength bilaterally in his lower extremities. Tr. 1398.
Dr. Hussein assessed muscle ache of extremity, noting subjective knee instability; left knee is
giving out/no falls/exam not significant. Tr. 1398. Dr. Weinstein assessed myalgia bilateral
extremities, noting no evidence of recurrence of sarcoma; and knee pain with complaints of
unstable gait; acquired lymphedema of leg due to sarcoma surgery; generalized anxiety disorder;
and obesity. Tr. 1399. Dr. Weinstein noted that Copfer’s new leg symptoms seemed to
correlate in time with an increase in Copfer’s atorvastatin. 6 Tr. 1399. Dr. Weinstein decreased
his dose of atorvastatin to see if that would help improve his symptoms and she advised him to
follow up with his primary care physician. Tr. 1399. On physical examination, Dr. Weinstein
observed that Copfer’s left leg had considerable edema for 1/2 to 1/3 of the lower leg and mild
edema inferior to a thigh scar. Tr. 1399. Dr. Weinstein noted that Copfer wore elastic support
5
Dr. Hussein was the Resident. Tr. 1398.
6
Atorvastatin is the generic name for Lipitor and used to help lower bad cholesterol and raise good cholesterol. See
https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-841/atorvastatin-oral/details (last visited 1/28/2019)
11
hose. Tr. 1399. Copfer was referred to physical therapy for gait assessment and knee
strengthening. Tr. 1398, 1399.
At Copfer’s initial physical therapy session on January 8, 2015, (Tr. 1424-1428), Copfer
relayed that he was independent with his activities of daily living but he had difficulty with
standing, walking, stairs, and squatting (Tr. 1425). The therapist observed that Copfer
demonstrated significant lower extremity weakness, decreased bilateral knee range of motion,
decreased flexibility, difficulty walking and diminished ability for other functional activities. Tr.
1427. The therapist felt that Copfer’s symptoms were consistent with knee degenerative joint
disease with pain aggravated by edema. Tr. 1427. Copfer performed gait training with a straight
cane and he was issued a cane during his visit. Tr. 1427. The therapist noted that Copfer
demonstrated improved gait with use of the cane. Tr. 1427.
C.
Testimonial evidence
1.
Plaintiff
Copfer testified at and was represented at both the September 2, 2015, hearing (Tr. 5164) and the November 1, 2016, hearing (Tr. 76-101, 103-104, 105-107).
September 2, 2015, hearing testimony
Copfer’s problems with his left leg started when he had a sarcoma in his left thigh. Tr.
60. He explained that he had a lymphedema in his left leg and continued to have swelling in his
left leg. Tr. 61. To control the swelling, Copfer indicated he wears a compression stocking on
his left leg and elevates his left leg at night. Tr. 61. Copfer was not elevating his leg during the
day. Tr. 61. Copfer also uses a compression pump on his leg during the day to reduce the
swelling. Tr. 61. It is a sleeve that compresses his leg really tight. Tr. 61-62. He has been
advised to use it for about an hour and half each day. Tr. 61. Copfer relayed that his legs had
12
been getting worse. Tr. 53. Copfer attended physical therapy on a number of occasions for his
legs. Tr. 53, 63. Copfer indicated that he did not feel that physical therapy really helped. Tr. 54,
56. More recently, per his doctor’s referral, he started attending physical therapy in February
2015. Tr. 54. As part of that physical therapy, Copfer started using a cane. Tr. 54. Copfer
relayed that he used his cane all the time, even in his house. Tr. 55. Copfer is able to drive
himself but his wife usually accompanies him in case he falls, which had happened a couple
months prior when his left leg gave out. Tr. 55. Copfer indicated that his leg giving out was one
of the main reasons physical therapy provided him with a cane. Tr. 55-56.
Copfer also started having problems with his right knee in 2013. Tr. 62. He has had
swelling, osteoarthritis, and a lot of pain. Tr. 62. The problems with his right knee affect his
ability to walk. Tr. 63. The cane helps him even out the weight – it helps him with stability. Tr.
63.
When Copfer goes out, he usually is attending a doctor appointment or going to the
grocery store. Tr. 56. Copfer indicated it is difficult for him to walk for a long time. Tr. 56. He
estimated being able to walk about 10-20 minutes before having to sit down. Tr. 56-57. After
that amount of time, Copfer’s legs are tired, very sore, aching and hurting. Tr. 57. Resting helps
relieve some of his pain. Tr. 57. Copfer usually has to sit for about 15-30 minutes before he
starts to feel better. Tr. 57. Copfer’s wife was working. Tr. 57. Copfer indicated that, if he was
not in too much pain during the day, he tries to clean the apartment a little bit and cook for his
wife. Tr. 57. He does some laundry. Tr. 57-58. There is an elevator in Copfer’s apartment
building which allows him to do some laundry. Tr. 58. Using the stairs is very difficult for
Copfer. Tr. 57-58.
November 1, 2016, hearing testimony
13
At the November 1, 2016, hearing, the ALJ noted that the Appeals Council identified a
conflict between a statement submitted by Copfer’s brother to the Appeals Council, wherein
Copfer’s brother stated that Copfer did not help him build a deck in 2014 and did not help him
unload or load building materials, and Copfer’s own reports in his medical records. Tr. 76-77.
Those reports indicate that Copfer injured himself while helping his brother load and unload
materials in 2013 and helped his brother with a deck in 2014. Tr. 77. Copfer indicated that his
brother did not have a deck and he could not explain why the information about building a deck
was in his medical records. Tr. 77-78. Copfer also indicated that he never helped his brother
with loading of building materials. Tr. 78.
With respect to the Appeals Council notation that the medical records indicated that
Copfer was having pain in his right knee because he had stopped taking Celebrex, Copfer
explained that he had stopped taking Celebrex because it was causing him pain in his back and
kidneys. Tr. 77. His doctors then switched him to another medication for his arthritis. Tr. 7879. Copfer indicated that the medication he was taking for his arthritis helped a little but his
arthritis still bothered him a lot. Tr. 79. His legs hurt really bad all the time and they crack and
pop. Tr. 79.
Copfer had his cane with him at the hearing. Tr. 80. He indicated he uses his cane all the
time, even in his house. Tr. 80. Copfer stated that the cane helped him with stability. Tr. 80.
He explained that his left leg buckles under him without warning. Tr. 80. Copfer stated that he
got the cane in 2014. Tr. 81. He indicated that a doctor prescribed the cane for him and then he
went to physical therapy to receive instructions on how to use the cane. Tr. 81. Copfer’s
counsel clarified that the records indicated that Copfer received instructions regarding use of the
cane from physical therapy in January 2015. Tr. 81-82 (referencing Exhibit 12F/364 (Tr. 1427)).
14
Copfer relayed that he had used the cane continuously since he received it. Tr. 82. If his leg
buckles, the cane provides him with the support needed to catch himself from falling. Tr. 82. As
a follow-up question, the ALJ asked Copfer whether he had ever fallen before he received the
cane and Copfer indicated he had not. Tr. 82. Copfer clarified that his leg had buckled under
him before getting the cane and he was afraid of falling, which is why he talked with his doctor
about getting a cane. Tr. 83. He needs to use his cane for support when standing as well as
walking because his legs get tired. Tr. 103-104. Copfer also received physical therapy in 2013
for the lymphedema in his left leg and in 2014 for problems with his knees. Tr. 98-99. Copfer’s
problems with his legs stared in 2007 when he had a resection of a sarcoma performed. Tr. 99.
He later developed recurrent cellulitis and lymphedema in his left leg. Tr. 99. He was
prescribed compression stockings in May of 2013 and uses them every day. Tr. 99. Copfer
continues to have swelling even with use of the compression stockings. Tr. 99. Copfer elevates
his leg at night when he sleeps and, on some days, he needs to elevate his leg during the day for
four or five hours over the course of the day. Tr. 100, 105-106. Copfer indicated that excessive
activity and standing makes the swelling in his leg worse. Tr. 100. Copfer started elevating his
leg following his surgery in 2007. Tr. 106. Copfer indicated that his doctors have explained to
him that the swelling in his leg occurs because, when the doctors removed the sarcoma, a lot of
nerve endings and lymph nodes were cut out so there are less pathways through which fluids can
circulate. Tr. 101.
During a typical day, Copfer will get up and take his wife to work. Tr. 89. He will return
home and, if his depression is bothering him, he will lie down and sleep for most of the day. Tr.
90. He might watch television or use the computer a little. Tr. 91. He picks his wife up from
work and his wife will prepare dinner for them. Tr. 90. During the day, he does some chores,
15
like dishes if there are any from breakfast or dinner but his wife performs most of the household
chores or they work on them together. Tr. 90. Copfer cannot manage stairs well so he and his
wife needed to find an apartment with an elevator, which took them a while to do. Tr. 90-91.
2.
Vocational Experts
Vocational Expert Gail Klier (“VE Klier”) testified at the September 2, 2015, hearing.
Tr. 64-69. VE Klier agreed that Copfer’s past work included coil winder and general laborer, as
characterized by a prior VE and identified by the ALJ earlier in the hearing. Tr. 52-53, 65.
Vocational Expert Gene Burkhammer (“VE Burkhammer”) testified at the November 1,
2016, hearing. Tr. 101-108. The ALJ advised VE Burkhammer that the past relevant work of
coil winder and general laborer (assembler) was being adopted from an earlier decision. Tr. 76.
Copfer’s counsel noted her understanding with respect to the ALJ’s adoption of the previously
described past relevant work. Tr. 76. The VE indicated that coil winder was an SVP 4 7 light
job, and production assembler was an SVP 3 light job that was performed by Copfer at the
medium level. Tr. 103. The ALJ asked the VE whether an individual of Copfer’s age, with the
same education and past relevant work and with the RFC for light work who could climb ramps
and stairs occasionally; never climb ladders, ropes and scaffolds; could stoop, kneel, crouch, and
crawl occasionally; and could perform simple routine tasks in a work setting without frequent
changes or fast pace requirements, which involves only superficial interaction would be able to
perform Copfer’s past relevant work. Tr. 104. The VE indicated that the individual would not
be able to perform Copfer’s past work but there would be light, SVP 2 jobs available, including
7
SVP refers to the DOT’s listing of a specific vocational preparation (SVP) time for each described occupation.
Social Security Ruling No. 00-4p, 2000 WL 1898704, *3 (Dec. 4, 2000). “Using the skill level definitions in 20
CFR 404.1568 and 416.968, unskilled work corresponds to an SVP of 1-2; semi-skilled work corresponds to an SVP
of 3-4; and skilled work corresponds to an SVP of 5-9 in the DOT.” Id.
16
(1) housekeeping cleaner; (2) mail clerk; and (3) clerical assistant. Tr. 104-105. The VE
provided national job incidence numbers for each of the identified positions. Tr. 105. The ALJ
then asked the VE whether adding to the hypothetical a requirement that the individual needed a
cane for walking and standing and a requirement that the individual be able to elevate the left
lower extremity above waist level throughout the day for four or five hours but not continuous
hours, just periodically, would change his testimony. Tr. 105-106. The VE replied, “That would
reduce the level to sedentary then the need to elevate for that length of time throughout the day
would eliminate all work.” Tr. 106. Copfer’s counsel asked the VE to consider the first
hypothetical but, instead of requiring use of a cane, the individual would require the ability to
take approximately four breaks, beyond those normally allowed, lasting 15 minutes to get off the
leg due to problems with pain, weakness and swelling. Tr. 108. The VE explained that such a
limitation would eliminate all work in the economy. Tr. 108.
III. Standard for Disability
Under the Act, 42 U.S.C § 423(a), eligibility for benefit payments depends on the
existence of a disability. “Disability” is defined as the “inability 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 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). Furthermore:
[A]n individual shall be determined to be under a disability only if his physical or
mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to
do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work
experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the
national economy8 . . . .
8
“’[W]ork which exists in the national economy’ means work which exists in significant numbers either in the
region where such individual lives or in several regions of the country.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A).
17
42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A).
In making a determination as to disability under this definition, an ALJ is required to
follow a five-step sequential analysis set out in agency regulations. The five steps can be
summarized as follows:
1.
If claimant is doing substantial gainful activity, he is not disabled.
2.
If claimant is not doing substantial gainful activity, his impairment must
be severe before he can be found to be disabled.
3.
If claimant is not doing substantial gainful activity, is suffering from a
severe impairment that has lasted or is expected to last for a continuous
period of at least twelve months, and his impairment meets or equals a listed
impairment, 9 claimant is presumed disabled without further inquiry.
4.
If the impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment, the ALJ must
assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity and use it to determine if
claimant’s impairment prevents him from doing past relevant work. If
claimant’s impairment does not prevent him from doing his past relevant
work, he is not disabled.
5.
If claimant is unable to perform past relevant work, he is not disabled if,
based on his vocational factors and residual functional capacity, he is
capable of performing other work that exists in significant numbers in the
national economy.
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; 10 see also Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-42 (1987).
Under this sequential analysis, the claimant has the burden of proof at Steps One through Four.
Walters v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 529 (6th Cir. 1997). The burden shifts to the
9
The Listing of Impairments (commonly referred to as Listing or Listings) is found in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, Subpt. P,
App. 1, and describes impairments for each of the major body systems that the Social Security Administration
considers to be severe enough to prevent an individual from doing any gainful activity, regardless of his or her age,
education, or work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1525.
10
The DIB and SSI regulations cited herein are generally identical. Accordingly, in some instances herein, for
convenience, citations to the DIB and SSI regulations regarding disability determinations will be made to the DIB
regulations found at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1501 et seq. The analogous SSI regulations are found at 20 C.F.R. § 416.901
et seq., corresponding to the last two digits of the DIB cite (i.e., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 corresponds to 20 C.F.R. §
416.920).
18
Commissioner at Step Five to establish whether the claimant has the RFC and vocational factors
to perform work available in the national economy. Id.
IV. The ALJ’s Decision
In her December 30, 2016, decision, the ALJ made the following findings: 11
1.
2.
Copfer had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged
onset date of April 11, 2012. Tr. 27.
3.
Since April 11, 2012, Copfer had the following severe impairments: radical
resection of left leg sarcoma, acquired lymphedema of the left leg,
osteoarthritis of the right knee, obesity, obstructive sleep apnea,
depression, anxiety, and learning disorder. Tr. 27.
4.
Since April 11, 2012, Copfer did not have an impairment or combination
of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of a Listing. Tr.
27-28.
5.
Prior to January 2, 2015, the date Copfer became disabled, Copfer had the
RFC to perform light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. 404.1567(b) except he
could climb ramps and stairs occasionally; climb ropes, ladders, and
scaffolds never; could stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl occasionally; and had
the ability to perform simple routine tasks in a work setting without
frequent changes and fast-paced requirements, involving only superficial
interactions. Tr. 29-34.
6.
Beginning on January 2, 2015, Copfer had the RFC to perform light work
as defined in 20 C.F.R. 404.1567(b) except could climb ropes, ladders and
scaffolds never; could stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl occasionally; had the
ability to perform simple routine tasks in a work setting without frequent
changes and fast-paced requirements, involving only superficial
interactions; required use of a cane for walking and standing; needed to
elevate left lower extremity above waist level throughout the daytime for
4-5 hours, but not continuous hours, just periodically. Tr. 34-37.
7.
Since April 11, 2012, Copfer had been unable to perform any past relevant
work. Tr. 37.
8.
11
Copfer met the insured status requirements through June 30, 2014. Tr. 27.
Prior to the established disability onset date, Copfer was a younger
individual age 18-49. Since the established disability onset date, Copfer’s
The ALJ’s findings are summarized.
19
age category changed to an individual closely approaching advanced age.
Tr. 37.
9.
Copfer had at least a high school education and was able to communicate
in English. Tr. 37.
10.
Prior to January 2, 2015, transferability of job skills was not material to the
determination of disability. Tr. 37-38. Beginning on January 2, 2015,
Copfer had not been able to transfer job skills to other occupations. Tr. 3738.
11.
Prior to January 2, 2015, considering Copfer’s age, education, work
experience, and RFC, there were jobs that existed in significant numbers
in the national economy that Copfer could have performed, including
housekeeping/cleaner, mail clerk, and clerical assistant. Tr. 38.
12.
Beginning on January 2, 2015, considering Copfer’s age, education, work
experience, and RFC, there were no jobs that existed in significant numbers
in the national economy that Copfer could perform. Tr. 38-39.
13.
Copfer was not disabled prior to January 2, 2015, but became disabled on
that date and continued to be disabled through the date of the decision. Tr.
39.
14.
Copfer was not under a disability within the meaning of the Social Security
Act at any time through June 30, 2014, the date last insured. Tr. 39.
V. Plaintiff’s Arguments
Copfer argues that the ALJ erred by excluding from the RFC for the period prior to
January 2, 2015, the requirement that Copfer needed to “elevate the left lower extremity above
waist level throughout the daytime for 4 to 5 hours, but not continuous hours, just periodically.”
Doc. 15, p. 11 (quoting Tr. 34). Copfer also argues that the ALJ erred by finding that Copfer did
not have a medical need to use a cane for ambulation prior to January 2, 2015. Doc. 15, pp. 1315.
VI. Law & Analysis
A.
Standard of review
20
A reviewing court must affirm the Commissioner’s conclusions absent a determination
that the Commissioner has failed to apply the correct legal standards or has made findings of fact
unsupported by substantial evidence in the record. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Wright v. Massanari, 321
F.3d 611, 614 (6th Cir. 2003). “Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla of evidence but less
than a preponderance and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.” Besaw v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 966 F.2d 1028,
1030 (6th Cir. 1992) (quoting Brainard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 889 F.2d 679, 681
(6th Cir. 1989).
The Commissioner’s findings “as to any fact if supported by substantial evidence shall be
conclusive.” McClanahan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 474 F.3d 830, 833 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing 42
U.S.C. § 405(g)). Even if substantial evidence or indeed a preponderance of the evidence
supports a claimant’s position, a reviewing court may not overturn the Commissioner’s decision
“so long as substantial evidence also supports the conclusion reached by the ALJ.” Jones v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 336 F.3d 469, 477 (6th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, a court “may not try the
case de novo, nor resolve conflicts in evidence, nor decide questions of credibility.” Garner v.
Heckler, 745 F.2d 383, 387 (6th Cir. 1984).
B.
Copfer has not shown error with respect to the ALJ’s RFC for the period prior to
January 2, 2015
Copfer challenges the ALJ’s RFC assessment for the period prior to January 2, 2015. He
contends that the ALJ should not have excluded from the RFC for the period prior to January 2,
2015, the requirement that Copfer needed to “elevate the left lower extremity above waist level
throughout the daytime for 4 to 5 hours, but not continuous hours, just periodically.” Doc. 15, p.
11 (quoting Tr. 34). He also argues that the ALJ erred by finding that Copfer did not have a
medical need to use a cane for ambulation prior to January 2, 2015. Doc. 15, pp. 13-15.
21
The Regulations make clear that a claimant’s RFC is an issue reserved to the
Commissioner and the ALJ assesses a claimant’s RFC “based on all of the relevant evidence” of
record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 404.1546(c).
1.
Need to elevate leg
Copfer argues that the ALJ erred by excluding from the RFC for the period prior to
January 2, 2015, the requirement that Copfer needed to “elevate the left lower extremity above
waist level throughout the daytime for 4 to 5 hours, but not continuous hours, just periodically.”
Doc. 15, p. 11 (quoting Tr. 34). This requirement was included in the RFC for the period
beginning on January 2, 2015, and Copfer argues that it should have also been included in the
RFC for the period prior to January 2, 2015, because his edema was present throughout the
record and persisted despite the use of compression hose even prior to January 2, 2015.
In advancing his argument, Copfer contends that the ALJ ignored evidence of the
continuing nature of the condition and, therefore, the decision was not based on the entirety of
the record. Doc. 15, pp. 11-12. The Court finds that the ALJ did not ignore evidence. In
formulating the RFC for the period prior to January 2, 2015, the ALJ considered evidence of
edema and recommendations that he use compression stockings and elevate his leg. Tr. 30.
Additionally, the ALJ considered other evidence, including evidence showing that, during the
period prior to January 2, 2015, Copfer had a robust range of activities of daily living, including
working on a deck. Tr. 31, 34. While Copfer disputed the medical records reflecting more
robust activities than Copfer alleged he was able to perform (Tr. 76-78), in this appeal, Copfer
has not shown that the ALJ’s findings with respect to his activities of daily living during the
period prior to January 2, 2015, are not supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ also
considered physical therapy records and other evidence of record. Tr. 30-34.
22
In connection with her assessment of the RFC for the period starting on January 2, 2015,
Copfer points out that the ALJ stated “Moreover, the claimant has an edema throughout the
record which persists despite compression house [sic]. It is reasonable to allow him to elevate
his leg[,]” Doc. 15, p. 12 (citing Tr. 35). In light of this statement, Copfer contends that the
need for Copfer to elevate his left lower extremity must be applied to the entire alleged disability
period. Doc. 15, p. 12. However, Copfer has not demonstrated why this statement, which was
made in the context of assessing his RFC for the period starting on January 2, 2015, supports the
same RFC limitation for the period prior to January 2, 2015.
When assessing the RFC for the period starting on January 2, 2015, the ALJ took into
account evidence from a January 2, 2015, medical treatment record, which shows that Copfer
had considerable lymphedema on one-half to one-third of the lower extremity despite the fact
that he was wearing compression hose. Tr. 34. Also, it was at this visit that Copfer, who had
declined a cane in the past (Tr. 742), requested a cane (Tr. 34, 1396, 1399). This evidence does
not relate to the pre-January 2, 2015, period and Copfer has not shown that the RFC for the
period prior to January 2, 2015, is not supported by substantial evidence. As indicated above, the
ALJ considered evidence of edema prior to January 2, 2015, along with other evidence of record,
including robust activities of daily living.
Considering the foregoing, the Court finds that Copfer has not shown that the ALJ erred
by not including an elevation requirement in the RFC for the period prior to January 2, 2015.
Further, Copfer’s claim that the ALJ ignored evidence that he had edema and used compression
stocking and elevation to relieve his symptoms prior to January 2, 2015, is unfounded and
amounts to a request that this Court try the case de novo, which is not the Court’s role. Garner,
23
745 F.2d at 387 (A court “may not try the case de novo, nor resolve conflicts in evidence, nor
decide questions of credibility.”).
2.
Need to use cane for ambulation
Copfer argues that the ALJ erred by finding that Copfer did not have a medical need to
use a cane for ambulation prior to January 2, 2015. Doc. 15, pp. 13-15. He contends that a
medical treatment record from January 14, 2013, supports a finding that he required use of a cane
for ambulation prior to January 2, 2015. Id. The medical record relied upon is a treatment note
from a visit with Dr. Seth Richman, MD, in the orthopedic department at MetroHealth. Doc. 15,
p. 13 (referring to Tr. 740-742). In that treatment note Dr. Richman indicated that Copfer was
offered, but declined, a cane. Tr. 742. Copfer contends that this treatment note should have been
treated as a treating physician opinion and assigned controlling weight. Doc. 15, pp. 14-15.
Copfer’s reliance on the January 14, 2013, treatment note to show that he required a cane
prior to January 2, 2015, is wholly misplaced. First, he declined use of a cane (Tr. 742) and
acknowledges that he did not begin using an ambulatory aid in January 2013 (Doc. 15, p. 13).
Yet, he now attempts to claim he needed a cane at that time. Second, Copfer’s argument that the
treatment record amounts to a medical opinion indicating that a cane was medically necessary
prior to January 2, 2015, is unpersuasive. Dr. Richman did not prescribe a cane. He noted only
that a cane was offered and Copfer declined it. Tr. 742. Third, Copfer’s claim that Dr. Richman
was a treating physician is unsupported by the record. The record does not demonstrate an
ongoing treatment relationship between Dr. Richman and Copfer. The January 14, 2013, visit
was a “new patient” visit with Dr. Richman, an orthopedic surgeon, for assessment of Copfer’s
knee pain. Tr. 740, 742. And Copfer acknowledges that Dr. Richman was new to treating him at
the time the record was made. Doc. 15, p. 14. Since there was no ongoing treatment
24
relationship, even if deemed a medical opinion, Dr. Richman’s treatment note would not be
entitled to deference or controlling weight under the treating physician rule. See Kornecky v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec, 167 Fed. Appx. 496, 508 (6th Cir. 2006); Daniels v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
152 Fed. Appx. 485, 490 (6th Cir. 2005).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds Copfer has not shown error with respect to the
ALJ’s decision not to include in the RFC for the period prior to January 2, 2015, a requirement
that Copfer must use a cane.
VII. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth herein, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s decision.
Dated: January 28, 2019
/s/ Kathleen B. Burke
Kathleen B. Burke
United States Magistrate Judge
25
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?