Padillow v. Social Security Administration
Filing
20
OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy affirming decision of Commissioner (Re: 2 Social Security Complaint ) (jcm, Dpty Clk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
IDA L. PADILLOW,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 10-CV-546-FHM
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner, Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Ida L. Padillow, seeks judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of
the Social Security Administration denying Social Security disability benefits.1
In
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) & (3), the parties have consented to proceed before
a United States Magistrate Judge.
Standard of Review
The role of the court in reviewing the decision of the Commissioner under 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g) is limited to a determination whether the record as a whole contains substantial
evidence to support the decision and whether the correct legal standards were applied.
See Briggs ex rel. Briggs v. Massanari, 248 F.3d 1235, 1237 (10th Cir. 2001); Winfrey v.
Chater, 92 F.3d 1017 (10th Cir. 1996); Castellano v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs.,
26 F.3d 1027, 1028 (10th Cir. 1994). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, less
than a preponderance, and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
1
Plaintiff's October 18, 2007, application for disability benefits was denied initially and on
reconsideration. A hearing before Adm inistrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Lantz McClain was held April 17, 2009.
By decision dated June 18, 2009, the ALJ entered the findings that are the subject of this appeal. The
Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review on June 23, 2010. The decision of the Appeals Council
represents the Com m issioner's final decision for purposes of further appeal. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.981, 416.1481.
as adequate to support a conclusion. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S. Ct.
1420, 1427, 28 L. Ed.2d 842 (1971) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S.
197, 229 (1938)). The court may neither reweigh the evidence nor substitute its judgment
for that of the Commissioner. Casias v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 933 F.2d
799, 800 (10th Cir. 1991). Even if the court would have reached a different conclusion, if
supported by substantial evidence, the Commissioner’s decision stands. Hamilton v.
Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 961 F.2d 1495 (10th Cir. 1992).
Background
Plaintiff was 44 years old on the date of alleged onset of disability and 46 on the
date of the ALJ’s decision. She is a high school graduate and formerly worked as a
property manager. She claims to have been unable to work since October 12, 2007, as
a result of degenerative disc disease and related back pain, diastolic dysfunction,
hypertension, carpel tunnel syndrome, hernia repair, knee pain, and obesity.
The ALJ’s Decision
The ALJ determined that Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity (RFC) to
perform sedentary work, except she cannot have constant use of the hands for repetitive
work such as keyboarding. [Dkt. 16-2, p. 15]. Plaintiff’s past relevant work was performed
at the light exertional level and therefore she is unable to perform her past work. Based
on the testimony of a vocational expert, the ALJ determined that there are a significant
number of jobs in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform with her RFC. The
case was thus decided at step five of the five-step evaluative sequence for determining
2
whether a claimant is disabled. See Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir.
1988) (discussing five steps in detail).
Plaintiff’s Contentions
Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ’s determination is not supported by substantial
evidence. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ: failed to properly consider all of the
medical evidence and to consider the combined effects of her impairments; erred in
making the credibility determination; erred in finding Plaintiff retains the residual functional
capacity to perform medium work;2 and erred in failing to fully develop the medical record.
[Dkt. 18, pp. 4-5]. The Court concludes that the record contains substantial evidence
supporting the ALJ’s denial of benefits in this case, and that the ALJ applied the correct
standards in evaluating the evidence. Therefore the Commissioner’s denial of benefits is
AFFIRMED.
Analysis
Consideration of Plaintiff’s Impairments3
Anxiety and Depression
Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ failed to consider her history of depression and anxiety
and disregarded these impairments without procuring a consultative mental examination.
[Dkt. 18, p. 5]. Plaintiff did not allege anxiety or depression as a basis for disability in her
application materials, or at the administrative hearing. Nor did she direct the Court to any
2
The ALJ found that Plaintiff had the RFC for sedentary, not m edium , work. The ALJ’s RFC findings
have been addressed in the context of Plaintiff’s other contentions.
3
Plaintiff’s brief contains several assertions about the law followed by general statem ents that the
ALJ’s analysis fell short of the standard required. The Court has addressed only the argum ents that Plaintiff
developed by m aking som e reference to the ALJ’s decision.
3
where in the medical record where she was treated for such problems. The Commissioner
noted several instances in the record where Plaintiff denied anxiety, and further that there
is only one reference to anxiety in the record, [Dkt. 16-9, p. 18], and no treatment was
prescribed for anxiety. [Dkt. 19, p. 9]. Plaintiff did not file a reply brief to contest these
assertions. The Court notes that the entry concerning anxiety pre-dates the alleged onset
date and reflects that Plaintiff was experiencing “constipation anxiety.” [Dkt. 16-9, p. 18].
The Court finds that the ALJ did not fail to adequately develop the record regarding
possible mental impairments and further there was no basis in the record to justify a
consultative mental examination. “[T]he ALJ should order a consultative exam when
evidence in the record establishes the reasonable possibility of the existence of a disability
and the result of the consultative exam could reasonably be expected to be of material
assistance in resolving the issue of disability.” Hawkins v. Chater, 113 F.3d 1162, 1169
(10th Cir. 1997)
The record in this case contains no evidence to suggest that a
consultative examination would have produced material information. There is no direct
conflict in the medical evidence requiring resolution; the medical evidence in the record is
not inconclusive; and additional tests are not required to explain a diagnosis already
contained in the record. See Id. at 1166.
Obesity
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to consider her obesity in formulating her RFC.
Plaintiff also asserts that the ALJ erred in failing to have the vocational expert consider her
obesity in rendering her opinion about Plaintiff’s ability to work. [Dkt. 18, p. 6].
The Court finds that by limiting Plaintiff to sedentary work, the ALJ adequately
considered the limitations supported in the record which were caused by Plaintiff’s obesity.
4
Plaintiff has provided no support for the notion that obesity, or any condition, should be
presented to the vocational expert for consideration. It is for the ALJ to determine from the
record what a claimant is capable of doing. That determination is expressed in the RFC
finding. The vocational expert testifies, based on his or her expertise, whether jobs exist
that can be performed with the particular limitations that the ALJ found to exist, as
expressed in the RFC.
Credibility
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ disregarded her testimony concerning her pain,
discomfort, and difficulty with blurred vision. The Court finds that in assessing Plaintiff’s
credibility the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s activities, including her ability to work for
three months since the alleged onset date performing tasks at the medium exertional level,
such as picking up trash, repairing sheet rock, and painting. [Dkt. 16-2, p. 16]. The ALJ
also considered the lack of effort Plaintiff expended to obtain pain relief, Id. at 16-17, the
lack of documentation of functional limitations by her treating physicians, Id. at 17, and the
objective findings documented by the consultative examiner, Id. at 17-18.
"Credibility determinations are peculiarly the province of the finder of fact, and we
will not upset such determinations when supported by substantial evidence." Diaz v. Sec'y
of Health & Human Servs., 898 F.2d 774, 777 (10th Cir.1990). However, a credibility
determination "should be closely and affirmatively linked to substantial evidence and not
just a conclusion in the guise of findings." Kepler v. Chater, 68 F.3d 387, 391 (10th
Cir.1995) (quotation omitted). Where a significant portion of the record evidence supports
the testimony the ALJ must explain why he has determined that the testimony is not
5
credible. Standard boilerplate language will not suffice. Briggs v. Massanari, 248 F.3d
1235, 1239 (10th Cir. 2001), see also SSR 967p, 1996 WL 374186, at *4 (stating that
credibility determinations "must be grounded in the evidence and articulated in the
determination or decision"). The ALJ’s credibility determination in this case was grounded
in the evidence and articulated in the decision.
The Court rejects Plaintiff’s assertion that the case should be reversed because the
ALJ disregarded her blurred vision. Plaintiff did not allege an inability to work due to
blurred vision, nor did she mention blurred vision at the hearing. Further, to the extent the
medical record records anything about her vision, it indicates that Plaintiff denied vision
problems. [Dkt. 16-8, pp. 9, 29, 33].
Conclusion
The Court finds that the ALJ evaluated the record in accordance with the legal
standards established by the Commissioner and the courts. The Court further finds there
is substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ's decision. Accordingly, the
decision of the Commissioner finding Plaintiff not disabled is AFFIRMED
SO ORDERED this 20th day September, 2011.
6
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?