Coleman v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 18 Report and Recommendations. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. This matter is CLOSED and TERMINATED from the active docket of this Court. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 9/16/16. (sct)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

Terry E. Coleman,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:15cv596

Commissioner of Social Security

Judge Michael R. Barrett

Defendant.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge=s June 7, 2016 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. 18).
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. 19).
When objections are received to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on a
dispositive matter, the district judge “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s
disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). After review, the
district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further
evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge completed a comprehensive review of the record and the same will
not be repeated here except as necessary to respond to Plaintiff’s objections.

A. Dr. Soria
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ did not properly interpret the opinion of Dr. Soria, Plaintiff’s
treating psychiatrist. Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ erred by assigning “little weight” to his
opinion.
1. Interpretation
The Magistrate Judge addressed this same argument in her R&R, and the Court finds no
error in the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the ALJ properly interpreted Dr. Soria’s opinion.
Plaintiff argues that Dr. Soria was responsible for providing his opinion as to level of
functionality, but it was the vocational expert’s job to determine the work-related implications of
that functionality level. Dr. Soria found that Plaintiff had a moderate ability to persist at
work-like tasks. For the reasons discussed below, however, Dr. Soria’s opinion was properly
afforded little weight by the ALJ. The vocational expert’s testimony that being off-task more
than 20% of the workday would be work preclusive was directly related to Dr. Soria’s opinion that
Plaintiff was moderately able to persist at work-like tasks, or able to do so for up to two-thirds of a
workday. Because the ALJ gave little weight to Dr. Soria’s opinion, the vocational expert’s
opinion in this regard is not determinative of whether Plaintiff was disabled in this case.
Plaintiff’s objections as to this issue are OVERRULED.
2. Weight of Opinion
The Magistrate Judge also addressed this same argument in great detail. Nonetheless,
Plaintiff argues that Dr. Soria’s opinions were consistent with the opinions of Drs. Berg and
Nelson and thus, should be given controlling weight.
As the Sixth Circuit has explained:
In assessing the medical evidence supplied in support of a claim, there are certain
2

governing standards to which an ALJ must adhere. Key among these is that
greater deference is generally given to the opinions of treating physicians than to
those of non-treating physicians, commonly known as the treating physician rule.
See Soc. Sec. Rul. 96–2p, 1996 WL 374188 (July 2, 1996); Wilson v. Comm'r of
Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004). Because treating physicians are “the
medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a
claimant's] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the
medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings
alone,” their opinions are generally accorded more weight than those of
non-treating physicians. 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(2). Therefore, if the opinion of
the treating physician as to the nature and severity of a claimant's conditions is
“well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic
techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the] case
record,” then it will be accorded controlling weight. Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544.
When the treating physician's opinion is not controlling, the ALJ, in determining
how much weight is appropriate, must consider a host of factors, including the
length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; the
supportability and consistency of the physician's conclusions; the specialization of
the physician; and any other relevant factors. Id.
Rogers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 242 (6th Cir. 2007) (footnote omitted).
Here, the ALJ found that Dr. Soria was not entitled to controlling weight due to the lack of
explanation for his opinion and the relatively high GAF scores, which speaks to the supportability
and consistency of his opinion. (Tr. 33). The ALJ further noted that Plaintiff threatened Dr.
Soria with litigation if he did not complete the disability form.

(Tr. 33).

considered the nature, length and extent of the treatment relationship.

The ALJ also

(Tr. 33).

Despite

Plaintiff’s argument that the most important consideration is consistency with other medical
opinions, it is clear that in order for a treating physician’s opinion to be given controlling weight, it
must be “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques
and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the] case record…” Wilson, 378 F.3d at
544. (Emphasis added.) The ALJ concluded that Dr. Soria’s opinion was not well supported by
the evidence in the record. Therefore, as the Magistrate Judge explained, the ALJ discounted Dr.
Soria’s opinion after properly considering the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.
3

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections on this point are OVERRULED.
B. Credibility
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in its assessment of Plaintiff’s credibility. Specifically,
Plaintiff argues that his attestation that he was able to work for purposes of unemployment is not
inconsistent with a finding of disabled and thus, Plaintiff’s credibility was not impeached.
The Magistrate Judge thoroughly reviewed the ALJ’s analysis in determining that Plaintiff
was not entirely credible. The record is clear that Plaintiff’s attestation regarding unemployment
benefits was one of many things, which impeached his credibility. For example, the ALJ also
found that Plaintiff’s testimony concerning his gout was not consistent with the medical record and
that Plaintiff had not sought mental health treatment until he was actively pursuing medical
benefits. As such, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge did not err in finding that
substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s credibility determination.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s

objections on this point are OVERRULED.
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge=s June 7, 2016
R&R. (Doc. 18). Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. This matter
shall be CLOSED and TERMINATED from the active docket of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________
s/Michael R. Barrett
Michael R. Barrett, Judge
United States District Court

4