Isaacs v. Commissioner Social Security

Filing 16

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 14 Report and Recommendation affirming the decision by the Commissioner. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 3/26/14. (ba1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

Mark Isaacs,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:12cv777

Commissioner of Social Security

Judge Michael R. Barrett

Defendant.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge=s December 2, 2013
Report and Recommendation (AR&R@) which recommends that the decision of the
Commissioner be affirmed and this matter be closed on the docket of the Court. (Doc.
14.)
Notice was given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(c). Plaintiff filed
objections to the Magistrate Judge=s R&R. (Doc. 15.)
The Magistrate Judge completed a comprehensive review of the record and the
same will not be repeated here except to the extent necessary to address Plaintiff’s
objections. Plaintiff limits his objections to the Magistrate Judge=s finding that the ALJ
properly weighed the opinion of Dr. Soto and properly determined Plaintiff’s RFC.
Plaintiff argues that when Plaintiff’s impairments are considered in combination, Plaintiff’s
RFC would necessarily be limited to sedentary exertion. Plaintiff argues that Dr. Soto’s
opinion supports this conclusion.
Plaintiff is correct that Dr. Soto’s opinion would support a finding Plaintiff is not

capable of light work and only capable of sedentary work. The VE testified that the
limitations provided by Dr. Soto in her August 2010 opinion would “limit him to sedentary
work activity just based on that sitting and limited standing as well as the lifting. Both of
those would put him in the sedentary category.” (Tr. 73).
However, the ALJ did not err in his decision to give little weight to the opinion of Dr.
Soto. The ALJ explained that he considered “all symptoms and to the extent which these
symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence
and other evidence based on the requirements of 20 CFR 404.1529 and SSRs 96-4p and
96-7p.” (Tr. 28.) As SSR 96-4p explains:
20 CFR 404.1529 and 416.929 provide that an individual's symptoms, such
as pain, fatigue, shortness of breath, weakness, or nervousness, will not be
found to affect the individual's ability to do basic work activities . . . unless
medical signs and laboratory findings show that there is a medically
determinable physical or mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be
expected to produce the symptom(s) alleged.
In addition, SSR 96–7 states that any medically determinable impairment resulting
in symptom-related functional limitations and restrictions reported by the claimant or
treating source should be taken into account as long as it can reasonably be accepted as
consistent with the objective medical evidence.

Taylor v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.,

3:12-CV-00272, 2013 WL 4008174, *10 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 5, 2013).
However, the ALJ found that Dr. Soto’s August 2010 opinion was inconsistent with
the objective medical evidence and her previous statements. (Tr. 30.) Specifically, the
ALJ noted that Dr. Soto’s August 2010 opinion stated that Plaintiff could not walk more
than two or three city blocks without rest or severe pain. (Id.) However, Dr. Soto’s
previous statements indicated that Plaintiff could walk and stand with no difficulty. (Id.)
The ALJ noted that Dr. Soto’s May 2009 report and Dr. Swedberg’s exam were
2

essentially normal despite Plaintiff’s complaints of back pain. (Id. at 29.) The ALJ also
explained that Dr. Soto’s opinion appeared “to be based on the claimant’s subjective
complaints, which appear out of proportion to clinical findings.” (Id. at 30.)
Because the ALJ did not give Dr. Soto’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ was not
required to incorporate Dr. Soto’s limitations into the RFC. As the Sixth Circuit has
explained:
It is true that an ALJ must determine a claimant's residual functional
capacity, considering “numerous factors” including “medical evidence,
non-medical evidence, and the claimant's credibility.” Coldiron v. Comm'r
of Soc. Sec., 391 Fed.Appx. 435, 443 (6th Cir. 2010); see SSR 96–5p, 1996
WL 374183, at *3 (July 2, 1996); SSR 96–8p, at *5. In doing so, an ALJ
must give “greater deference” to treating physicians, who are typically best
able to present a detailed picture of the claimant's impairment. However,
“the opinion of a treating physician does not receive controlling weight
merely by virtue of the fact that it is from a treating physician.” Massey v.
Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 409 Fed.Appx. 917, 921 (6th Cir.2011). An ALJ is
entitled to discount the medical opinion of a treating physician if it does not
meet the above standards, provided that he gives “good reasons” for not
according controlling weight. Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544.
Reynolds v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 424 F. App'x 411, 417 (6th Cir. 2011).
Therefore, Plaintiff’s objections on this issue are OVERRULED.
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge=s
December 2, 2013 R&R (Doc. 14) affirming the decision of the Commissioner. This
matter shall be CLOSED and TERMINATED from the docket of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Michael R. Barrett
Michael R. Barrett, Judge
United States District Court

3