Owens v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
19
Memorandum Opinion and Order affirming the Commissioner's final decision. Magistrate Judge Nancy A. Vecchiarelli on 9/14/2011. (G,W)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
WILLIAM B. OWENS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 3:10-cv-1801
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
VECCHIARELLI
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER
Plaintiff, William B. Owens (“Plaintiff”), challenges the final decision of
Defendant, Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”),
denying Plaintiff’s applications for a Period of Disability (“POD”) and Disability Insurance
Benefits (“DIB”), and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Titles II and XVI of
the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423, 1381 et seq. (“the Act”). This Court
has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). This case is before the undersigned
United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the consent of the parties entered under
the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(2). For the reasons set forth below, the
Commissioner’s final decision is AFFIRMED.
I.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 30, 2007, Plaintiff protectively filed an application for DIB. (Tr. 9.)
On November 5, 2007, Plaintiff protectively filed an application for SSI. (Tr. 9.) In both
applications, Plaintiff alleged a disability onset date of September 1, 2006. (Tr. 9.)
Plaintiff’s applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration, so Plaintiff
requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”). (Tr. 9.)
On July 22, 2009, an ALJ held Plaintiff’s hearing by video conference. (Tr. 9.)
Plaintiff appeared at his hearing, was represented by counsel, and testified. (Tr. 9.) A
vocational expert (“VE”) also appeared and testified. (Tr. 9.)
On November 4, 2009, the ALJ found Plaintiff not disabled. (Tr. 18.) On June
23, 2010, the appeals council declined to review the ALJ’s decision, so the ALJ’s
decision became the Commissioner’s final decision. (Tr. 1.) On August 16, 2010,
Plaintiff timely filed his complaint challenging the Commissioner’s final decision. (Doc.
No. 1.) On January 14, 2011, Plaintiff filed his Brief on the Merits. (Doc. No. 15.) On
April 6, 2011, the Commissioner filed his Brief on the Merits. (Doc. No. 18.) Plaintiff did
not file a Reply Brief.
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to give good reasons for giving Plaintiff’s
treating physician’s opinion little weight because she “gave no indication” that she
considered certain relevant factors in her analysis. (Pl.’s Br. 10.)
II.
A.
EVIDENCE
Personal and Vocational Evidence
Plaintiff was thirty-three years old on his alleged disability onset date. (Tr. 17.)
2
He has a high school education and is able to communicate in English. (Tr. 17.) He
has past relevant work as a welder. (Tr. 16.)
B.
Medical Evidence
Plaintiff concedes that he is limited primarily by his lung condition. On July 20,
2006, Plaintiff presented to St. Charles Mercy Hospital with complaints of chest pain.
(Tr. 345-46.) Dr. Mehmet A. Sungurlu, M.D., attended to Plaintiff and indicated that
Plaintiff also reported shortness of breath, lightheadedness, and diaphoresis.1 (Tr.
345.) Dr. Sungurlu reported that a chest x-ray revealed “COPD changes with
hyperinflation” and “linear scarring,” although there was no effusion and Plaintiff’s lung
fields were clear. (Tr. 345.) Dr. Sungurlu’s provisional diagnosis was chest pain,
although Dr. Sungurlu ruled out acute coronary syndrome. (Tr. 345.)
Plaintiff continued to suffer chest pain and present to the emergency room in
November 2006. (Tr. 216-21.) On November 6, 2007, Dr. Manuel V. Madrazo, M.D.,
attended to Plaintiff and diagnosed Plaintiff with “atypical chest pain” and “bullous
emphysema.” (Tr. 221.) On November 7, 2006, Dr. Daniel B. Fought, D.O., attended
to Plaintiff and assessed Plaintiff with a “bleb”2 and “juvenile onset chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease.”3 (Tr. 219.) On November 14, 2006, Dr. Gregory Jeppesen, D.O.,
1
Diaphoresis is otherwise known as profuse sweating. Dorland's Illustrated
Medical Dictionary 509 (30th ed. 2003).
2
A bleb is otherwise known as a “bulla” or “blister” and is “a large elevation on
the skin, containing serous or seropurulent fluid.” Dorland's Illustrated Medical
Dictionary, supra note 1, at 259.
3
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is otherwise known as “COPD.”
Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, supra note 1, at 416.
3
attended to Plaintiff and diagnosed Plaintiff with “pleurisy”4 and “emphysematous
disease.” (Tr. 217.) Dr. Jeppesen indicated that Plaintiff was discharged with
instructions to use an inhaler for his shortness of breath, finish taking antibiotics, and
“follow up with Dr. Jain as scheduled.” (Tr. 217.)
On January 25, 2007, Plaintiff presented to Dr. Navin Jain, M.D., and underwent
a pulmonary function test (“PFT”). (Tr. 225.) Dr. Jain interpreted the test and reported
the following. Plaintiff had a “restrictive ventilatory defect of moderate severity.” (Tr.
225.) There was no significant improvement after Plaintiff was given bronchodilators.
(Tr. 225.) The diffusing capacity of Plaintiff’s lungs for carbon monoxide (“DLCO”) was
moderately reduced, but Plaintiff’s airway resistance was normal. (Tr. 225.)
On September 4, 2007, Plaintiff presented to the emergency room with a
complaint of a sharp pain in his left shoulder. (Tr. 239.) Dr. Jain attended to Plaintiff
and reported the following. Plaintiff suffered “left pneumothorax.”5 (Tr. 239.) A small
bore chest tube proved ineffective to relieve the pneumothorax, so a wide bore chest
tube was inserted. (Tr. 239.) Plaintiff also underwent a Thoracic Surgery consultation.
(Tr. 239.) Although an x-ray showed that Plaintiff continued to suffer 20% to 30%
pneumothorax, Plaintiff declined surgery and requested that the chest tube be
removed. (Tr. 239.) Dr. Jain complied with Plaintiff’s request, and Plaintiff was
4
The “pleura” is “the serous membrane investing the lungs and lining the
thoracic cavity, completely enclosing a potential space known as the pleural
cavity.” Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, supra note 1, at 1451.
Pleurisy is “inflamation of the pleura, with exudation into its cavity and upon its
surface.” Id.
5
Pneumothorax is “an accumulation of air or gas in the pleural space.”
Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, supra note 1, at 1467.
4
discharged with instructions to quit smoking and continue using bronchodilators. (Tr.
239.)
On December 14, 2007, Plaintiff presented to Dr. Sushil M. Sethi, M.D., for a
physical examination upon the request of the Bureau of Disability Determination. (Tr.
375-77.) Dr. Sethi indicated that Plaintiff reported the following. Beginning September
7, 2007, Plaintiff suffered spontaneous pneumothorax. (Tr. 375.) Plaintiff now suffered
general tightness in his left chest, became dizzy after long bouts of coughing, could not
stand or walk “too long,” and had difficulty lifting heavy objects. (Tr. 375.) Plaintiff did
not use oxygen, but occasionally took Vicodin to alleviate his chest pain and periodically
used an inhaler. (Tr. 375.) Although Plaintiff used to smoke a pack of cigarettes a day,
after the onset of his pneumothorax he smoked only two or three cigarettes a day. (Tr.
375.)
Upon physical examination, Dr. Sethi’s impression was that Plaintiff suffered
“severe restrictive pulmonary disease,” and had a history of asthma and spontaneous
pneumothorax. (Tr. 377.) Dr. Sethi concluded that Plaintiff’s “ability to do work-related
physical activities such as sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying and handling
objects and traveling is limited.” (Tr. 377.)
On March 11, 2008, Plaintiff presented to the emergency room with complaints
of chest pain and shortness of breath. (Tr. 440-47.) Dr. Jeppesen attended to Plaintiff,
reviewed a chest x-ray, and reported that “there was evidence of COPD on the x-ray,
but nothing acute.” (Tr. 443.) Dr. Jeppesen assessed Plaintiff with “pleuritic left sided
chest pain,” and indicated that Plaintiff was discharged with instructions to take Vicodin
to alleviate the pain. (Tr. 443.)
5
On May 7, 2008, Plaintiff presented to Dr. Nester P. Zambrano, M.D., at
Neighborhood Health Association to establish a primary care relationship. (Tr. 451.)
On August 7, 2008, Plaintiff presented to Dr. Zambrano with a complaint of pain in his
left lung when he breathed. (Tr. 458.) Dr. Zambrano advised Plaintiff to go to the
emergency room as soon as possible. (Tr. 458.) A week later, Plaintiff followed up with
Dr. Zambrano to obtain x-ray results. (Tr. 457.) Dr. Zambrano reported that Plaintiff
had not gone to the emergency room as Dr. Zambrano had advised (457), and that the
x-ray evidenced left-sided pleural effusion (Tr. 438). Plaintiff continued to see Dr.
Zambrano in relation to his COPD and anxiety through the rest of 2008 and until April
23, 2009, although Plaintiff did not keep his appointments on two occasions. (Tr. 45355.)
On November 19, 2008, state agency medical consultant John A. Pella, M.D.,
provided testimony by affirmation of Plaintiff’s physical residual functional capacity
(“RFC”). (Tr. 416-18.) Dr. Pella opined that Plaintiff could lift 10 pounds frequently and
20 pounds occasionally, and that Plaintiff could sit, stand, and walk for about 6 hours in
an 8-hour day. (Tr. 417.) Dr. Pella further opined that Plaintiff’s abilities to push, pull,
bend, stoop, and crouch were not affected, but that Plaintiff should have no exposure to
respiratory irritants and extremes of environmental temperatures. (Tr. 417.)
On September 11, 2009, Dr. Sethi examined Plaintiff and authored a medical
source statement at the request of the Bureau of Disability Determination. (Tr.
474-503.) Dr. Sethi was of the impression that Plaintiff had severe obstructive
pulmonary disease with no improvement with bronchodilators, a history of spontaneous
pneumothorax of the left chest, and arthritic symptoms. (Tr. 476.) Dr. Sethi concluded,
6
based on his objective findings, that Plaintiff’s “ability to do work-related physical
activities such as sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying and handling objects may be
slightly limited.” (Tr. 476.)
Dr. Sethi’s specific physical RFC findings are as follows. Plaintiff could lift and
carry between 21 and 60 pounds occasionally, between 11 and 20 pounds frequently,
and up to 10 pounds continuously. (Tr. 489.) Plaintiff could sit for 4 hours at a time
without interruption and for a total of 4 hours in an 8-hour work day. (Tr. 490.) Plaintiff
could stand and walk for 2 hours at a time without interruption and for a total of 3 hours
in an 8-hour work day. (Tr. 490.) Plaintiff could continuously reach, handle, finger, feel,
push, and pull with both hands. (Tr. 491.) Plaintiff could continuously operate foot
controls with both feet. (Tr. 491.) Plaintiff could also frequently climb stairs, ramps,
ladders, and scaffolds; and frequently balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. (Tr.
492.) Furthermore, Plaintiff could frequently work in unprotected heights; work around
moving mechanical parts; operate a motor vehicle; and tolerate humidity, wetness, dust,
odors, fumes, pulmonary irritants, extreme heat and cold, vibrations, and “other”
environmental conditions. (Tr. 493.)
On October 2, 2009, Dr. Zambrano completed a medical source statement
regarding Plaintiff’s physical RFC. (Tr. 504-05.) Dr. Zambrano’s opinion of Plaintiff’s
physical RFC is as follows. Plaintiff could sit, stand, and walk for 15 minutes at a time
and for a total of 1 hour in an 8-hour work day. (Tr. 504.) Plaintiff could lift and carry 10
pounds occasionally and less than 5 pounds frequently. (Tr. 504.) Plaintiff could never
stoop, reach, twist, climb stairs, work around hazardous machinery, tolerate heat and
cold, and tolerate dust, smoke, or fumes. (Tr. 504.) Plaintiff could occasionally
7
balance, finger, handle, walk on uneven ground, and operate hand and foot controls.
(Tr. 504.) Plaintiff needed to elevate his legs for 2 hours and lie down for 2 hours in an
8-hour workday (Tr. 504); required an assistive device to walk (Tr. 505); and had limited
distance vision (Tr. 505). Plaintiff suffered moderate to severe pain and took
medications that would adversely affect his work performance. (Tr. 505.)
C.
Hearing Testimony
1.
Plaintiff’s Testimony
Plaintiff testified at his hearing as follows. Plaintiff smokes only one cigarette a
week. (Tr. 33.) He is not able to stand all day because he has a hard time breathing,
becomes dizzy and short of breath, and suffers constant pain. (Tr. 26-27.) He takes
medication to relieve his pain, but it does not alleviate his pain very well. (Tr. 27.) His
lung collapses once every one or two weeks, which causes him great pain, and he
requires three to five days to recover. (Tr. 34-35.) When his lung collapses, he needs
to lie down or sit in a reclining chair, and he is not able to perform any activities. (Tr.
35.)
Plaintiff is able to walk about one block before he becomes dizzy and loses his
breath, and he is able to stand for only 10 to 15 minutes before his low back begin to
ache. (Tr. 29-30.) He has difficulty lifting a full gallon of milk and usually needs to use
both hands to do so. (Tr. 30.) He lives with his mother and does not engage in daily
household activities or drive; he spends most of his time in bed or sitting in a chair. (Tr.
31.)
2.
The VE’s Testimony
The ALJ posed the following hypothetical person to the VE:
8
I want you to assume . . . an individual the Claimant’s age, education, and
past work experience who could lift . . . 10 pounds frequently and 20 pounds
occasionally. Who could sit for six hours in an eight-hour work day, stand
and walk in combination a total of six hours in an eight-hour work day. He
should not be exposed to any extreme cold, extreme heat, or atmospheric
conditions that would cause any kind of pulmonary irritants like gas, dust,
fumes, et cetera. In addition, this individual should do only simple, routine,
repetitive tasks involving short, simple instructions in an environment with
few workplace changes and limited contact with others.
(Tr. 38-39.) The VE testified that such a hypothetical person could not perform
Plaintiff’s past relevant work, but could perform other work as a cafeteria attendant (for
which there were approximately 200 to 250 jobs in the region and 15,000 jobs in the
state), office helper (for which there were approximately 350 to 400 jobs in the region
and 5,000 jobs in the state), and stock checker (for which there were approximately 400
to 450 jobs in the region and 9,000 jobs in the state). (Tr. 39-40.)
The ALJ then posed a second hypothetical to the VE:
I want you to assume an individual the Claimant’s age, education, and past
work experience who could lift up to 10 pounds. And could sit for six hours
in an eight-hour workday, stand and walk a total of two hours in an eight-hour
workday. Again, there should be no exposure to extreme cold or heat or
atmospheric conditions involving pulmonary irritants like gas, dust, fumes.
The individual is limited to simple, routine, repetitive tasks involving short,
simple instructions in an environment with few work place changes and
limited contact with others.
(Tr. 40-41.) The VE testified that such a person could perform work as a spotter (for
which there were approximately 100 to 150 jobs in the region and 3,000 jobs in the
state), sorter (for which there were approximately 100 to 150 jobs in the region and
4,000 jobs in the state), and final assembler (for which there were approximately 150 to
200 jobs in the region and 6,000 jobs in the state). (Tr. 41.)
Upon questioning by Plaintiff’s attorney, the VE further testified that a person
9
who suffered a collapsed lung once every two weeks that kept him from work for three
to five days at a time would be precluded from performing any jobs in the national
economy. (Tr. 42.) Moreover, upon questioning by Plaintiff’s attorney, the VE testified
that a person who could walk for only half a block, stand for 10 minutes at a time, and
sit for 15 minutes at a time could perform the second set of jobs he offered because
those jobs would provide the opportunity to change positions from sitting to standing at
will without interfering with work. (Tr. 42.)
III.
STANDARD FOR DISABILITY
A claimant is entitled to receive benefits under the Social Security Act when she
establishes disability within the meaning of the Act. 20 C.F.R. § 416.905; Kirk v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., 667 F.2d 524 (6th Cir. 1981). A claimant is considered
disabled when she cannot perform “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.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.905(a). To receive SSI benefits, a recipient
must also meet certain income and resource limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1100 and
416.1201.
The Commissioner reaches a determination as to whether a claimant is disabled
by way of a five-stage process. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4) and 416.920(a)(4); Abbott
v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 918, 923 (6th Cir. 1990). First, the claimant must demonstrate
that she is not currently engaged in “substantial gainful activity” at the time she seeks
disability benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b) and 416.920(b). Second, the claimant
must show that she suffers from a “severe impairment” in order to warrant a finding of
10
disability. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c). A “severe impairment” is one that
“significantly limits . . . physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” Abbot, 905
F.2d at 923. Third, if the claimant is not performing substantial gainful activity, has a
severe impairment that is expected to last for at least twelve months, and the
impairment meets a listed impairment, the claimant is presumed to be disabled
regardless of age, education or work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d) and
416.920(d). Fourth, if the claimant’s impairment does not prevent her from doing her
past relevant work, the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e)-(f) and
416.920(e)-(f). For the fifth and final step, even if the claimant’s impairment does
prevent her from doing her past relevant work, if other work exists in the national
economy that the claimant can perform, the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520(g), 404.1560(c), and 416.920(g).
IV.
SUMMARY OF COMMISSIONER’S DECISION
The ALJ made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1.
The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the Social
Security Act through June 30, 2011.
2.
The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since
September 1, 2006, the alleged onset date.
3.
The claimant has the following severe impairments: restrictive lung
disease, history of spontaneous pneumothorax, and depression.
4.
The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals one of the listed
impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.
5.
After careful consideration of the entire record, I find that the claimant
has the residual functional capacity to perform medium work . . .
except the claimant’ [sic] exposure to pulmonary irritants such as gas,
dust, and fumes should be very limited. Additionally, he is limited to
11
simple, routine, repetitive tasks involving short, simple instructions in
an environment with few workplace changes and limited contact with
others.
6.
The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work.
.....
9.
Transferability of job skills is not material to the determination of
disability because using the Medical-Vocational Rules as a framework
supports a finding that the claimant is “not disabled,” whether or not
the claimant has transferrable job skills.
10.
Considering the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and
residual functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant
numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform.
11.
The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social
Security Act, from September 1, 2006 through the date of this
decision.
(Tr. 11-18.)
V.
A.
LAW & ANALYSIS
Standard of Review
Judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision is limited to determining whether
the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence and was made
pursuant to proper legal standards. Ealy v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504, 512
(6th Cir. 2010). Review must be based on the record as a whole. Heston v. Comm'r of
Soc. Sec., 245 F.3d 528, 535 (6th Cir. 2001). The court may look into any evidence in
the record to determine if the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence,
regardless of whether it has actually been cited by the ALJ. Id. However, the court
does not review the evidence de novo, make credibility determinations, or weigh the
evidence. Brainard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 889 F.2d 679, 681 (6th Cir.
12
1989).
The Commissioner's conclusions must be affirmed absent a determination that
the ALJ failed to apply the correct legal standards or made findings of fact unsupported
by substantial evidence in the record. White v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 572 F.3d 272, 281
(6th Cir. 2009). 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. Brainard, 889 F.2d at 681. A decision supported by
substantial evidence will not be overturned even though substantial evidence supports
the opposite conclusion. Ealy, 594 F.3d at 512.
B.
The ALJ’s Assessment of Plaintiff’s Treating Physician’s Opinions
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in her assessment of Plaintiff’s treating
physician, Dr. Zambrano, because the ALJ “gave no indication” that she considered
certain relevant factors and failed to provide good reasons for giving Dr. Zambrano’s
opinion regarding Plaintiff’s physical RFC less than controlling weight. For the following
reasons, the Court disagrees.
An ALJ must give the opinion of a treating source controlling weight if she finds
the opinion well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic
techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.
Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting 20 C.F.R. §
404.1527(d)(2)). If the opinion of a treating source is not accorded controlling weight,
an ALJ must apply certain factors—namely, the length of the treatment relationship and
the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the
supportability of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole,
13
and the specialization of the treating source—in determining what weight to give the
opinion. Id. The Social Security regulations also contain a clear procedural
requirement: “We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or
decision for the weight we give [a claimant's] treating source’s opinion.” Id. Pursuant to
this procedural requirement, a decision denying benefits “must contain specific reasons
for the weight given to the treating source’s medical opinion, supported by the evidence
in the case record, and must be sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent
reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and
the reasons for that weight.” Id. (quoting S.S.R. 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *5 (1996)).
The ALJ’s assessment of Dr. Zambrano’s opinion is as follows:
I am giving little weight to the opinion reported by Dr. Zambrano on October
2, 2009. Dr. Zambrano’s assessment limits the claimant to less than
sedentary work without explanation as to those limitations. The only thing he
notes is that the claimant has COPD and a history of spontaneous
pneumothorax that supposedly account for his complaints of pain. The
doctor’s contemporaneous treatment records do not support severe
restrictions on activities. Those records show largely unremarkable findings.
Furthermore, some of the restrictions posited by Dr. Zambrano seem
unrelated to anything he noted on exam. For example, he states that the
claimant can only occasionally handle and finger and never reach, but there
is no reason given and he makes to [sic] correlation between these
restrictions and COPD or a history of pneumothorax. Dr. Zambrano also
states that the claimant needs to elevate his legs two hours per day, use an
assistive device to walk, and has limited distance vision. However, the
record does not support these restrictions. I afford little weight to Dr.
Zambrano’s opinion from October 2009 in that it is conclusory, inconsistent
with the doctor’s own findings, and inconsistent with the record as a whole.
(Tr. 16) (internal citations omitted). Plaintiff provides no explanation of how the ALJ’s
analysis of Dr. Zambrano’s opinion is deficient and cites no legal authority in support of
his contention that the analysis is inadequate. To the contrary, the ALJ’s analysis of Dr.
14
Zambrano’s opinion is thorough and sufficiently specific to make clear why she gave Dr.
Zambrano’s opinion little weight, and there is no basis to conclude that the ALJ failed to
consider the factors required under the law. Cf. Morris v. Barnhart, 223 F. App’x 465,
468 (6th Cir. 2007) (“Our review reveals that the ALJ provided a lengthy and thorough
discussion of these doctors’ reports and findings. Unlike in Wilson v. Comm'r, 378 F.3d
541, 545 (6th Cir. 2004), on which Morris heavily relies, the ALJ did not summarily
dismiss the treating physicians’ opinions.”). Accordingly, this assignment of error lacks
merit.
VI.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioner’s final decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Nancy A. Vecchiarelli
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Date: September 14, 2011
15
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?