Grodin v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 24

Memorandum Opinion and Order that the matter is hereby remanded for further proceedings. Signed by Magistrate Judge William H. Baughman, Jr., on 9/10/19. (D,Ky)

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

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

GARY F. GRODIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,

CASE NO.1:18-CV-01184

MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WILLIAM H. BAUGHMAN, JR.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER

Defendant,

Gary Grodin sought disability benefits in 2015 due to dizziness, migraines and
balance issues.1 After his claim was initially denied, in 2007 he received a hearing before
an ALJ.2 The ALJ found that although Grodin had severe impairments consisting of
depression, disorder of the nervous system, anxiety and gait disturbance,3 he was
nevertheless capable of performing a full range of work during the entire relevant period
at all exertional levels with restrictions.4

1

Tr.at 15.
Id.
3
Id. at 17.
4
Id. at 19.
2

1

Grodin argues that the RFC is not supported by substantial evidence because the
ALJ relied only on positive evidence from 2017 and ignored evidence from the period 2015
to 2016 showing diminished residual functional capacity. I agree.
The evidence is clear that Grodin went through a “rough patch” between 2013 and
2016. During this period he had substantial stability and balance problems,5 headaches,6
anxiety,7

depression8

and experienced frequent falls.9 He was prescribed various

treatments that were only somewhat helpful.10 But beginning in August 2016 he began
treatment with a new physician11 and Grodin began to improve.12 Significantly, in
reviewing the improvements due to the new therapies, the ALJ expressly noted that the
“record did not indicate that [Grodin] pursued such treatment modalities longitudinally
during the relevant period.”13
In considering the medical record, however, the ALJ gave only partial weight to the
functional capacity opinion of Grodin’s original primary care doctor, Dr. Miller, who had
based his opinion on the many difficulties experienced by Grodin prior to August 2016.14
The ALJ further stated that this opinion by Dr. Miller was otherwise “unsupported by the

5

Id.at 290, 291, 356, 359, 366, 649.
Id. at 356, 380.
7
Id. at 372, 375, 432.
8
Id. at 432, 454, 570.
9
Id. at 385, 576.
10
Id. at 364 (balance therapy), 576 (counseling), 543 (Cyptophrenaline and Advil), 571
(Citalopram), 585 (psychiatry), 999 (neuropsychology), 894, 910 (vocational counseling),
749 (cognitive behavioral therapy, psychiatry and physical therapy).
11
Id. at 22 (Dr. Shaikh).
12
Id. at 22-23.
13
Id. at 23.
14
Id.
6

2

evidence of record.”15 To that point, the ALJ cited the notes of the second doctor – Dr.
Shaikh - as showing that there was no evidence of instability.16 In sum, the ALJ himself
expressly concluded that the evidence showed that “[Grodin] actually demonstrated
significant improvement with appropriate and consistent therapies.”17
This last observation by the ALJ is crucial. The evidence is exactly as he noted.
Grodin did significantly improve his function after beginning treatment with Dr. Shaikh in
August 2016. But this clear record of improvement doesn’t mean that Dr. Miller’s earlier
observations were rendered invalid of contradicted by Dr. Shaikh’s later comments, as the
ALJ concluded.
Because the evidence is that Grodin’s condition did not remain static, but improved,
there is a possibility that Grodin was disabled for a partial closed period between the onset
date and the time when he began to improve after starting treatment with Dr. Shaikh. At
the very least, substantial evidence does not support the RFC as being applicable
throughout the entire relevant period.
Accordingly, the matter is hereby remanded for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 10, 2019

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

15

Id.
Id.
17
Id. 
16

3