Miles v. Social Security Administration

Filing 18

OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy (FHM1, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
TROY NEWMAN MILES,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 12-CV-350-FHM

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner, Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Troy Newman Miles, 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 of 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 August 26, 2009, application for disability benefits was denied initially and on
reconsideration. A hearing before Adm inistrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Deborah L. Rose was held October 28,
2010. By decision dated Decem ber 22, 2010, the ALJ entered the findings that are the subject of this appeal.
The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review on February 28, 2012. 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 41 years old on the alleged date of onset of disability and 44 on the
date of the ALJ’s denial decision. He has a high school graduate education and formerly
worked as cleaner. He claims to have been unable to work since January 15, 2008 as a
result of positive HIV, back pain, depression, and anxiety.
The ALJ’s Decision
The ALJ determined that Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity to lift and/or
carry 20 pounds occasionally or 10 pounds frequently, he can stand and/or walk for 6
hours or sit for 6 hours. He can have superficial interaction with supervisors coworkers or
the public. He is limited to simple and some complex tasks with routine supervision. [R.
19]. The ALJ determined that with these limitations Plaintiff is capable of returning to his
former work as a cleaner. In addition, 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 these limitations. The case was thus decided at step four of
the five-step evaluative sequence for determining whether a claimant is disabled with an

2

alternate step five finding. See Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir. 1988)
(discussing five steps in detail).
Plaintiff’s Allegations
Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ improperly analyzed the medical source statement by
his treating physician, Dr. McElwain.
Analysis
Dr. McElwain completed a Mental Medical Source Statement form dated October
26, 2010 in which Dr. McElwain indicated Plaintiff had marked limitations in the ability to
perform a number of work-related mental activities. [R. 553-556]. The ALJ stated that she
gave “little weight” to Dr. McElwain’s findings because they were “completely unsupported
by any empirical evidence” and Dr. McElwain did not provide any supportive rationale for
his findings. [R. 22]. The ALJ noted that the record contains no evidence, even from
Plaintiff’s conversations with care providers, that Plaintiff is restricted to the degree
depicted by Dr. McElwain. Id. She also noted that Dr. McElwain’s name does not appear
on any medical documents in the record except for the Mental Medical Source Statement
form. Id.
An ALJ is required to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion if the
opinion is both: (1) well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory
diagnostic techniques; and (2) consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.
Branum v. Barnhart, 385 F.3d 1268, 1275 (10th Cir. 2004). If the ALJ rejects the opinion
completely, he must give specific legitimate reasons for doing so. Miller v. Chater, 99 F.3d
972, 976 (10th Cir. 1996), Frey v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 508, 513 (10th Cir. 1987).

3

The court finds that the ALJ gave specific legitimate reasons for not giving Dr.
McElwain’s opinion controlling weight and stated she gave his opinion “little weight.” [R.
22]. Further, the reasons given by the ALJ are supported by the record.
The court finds no error in the ALJ’s reliance on the opinions expressed by the state
Disability Determination Service (DDS) reviewing experts who reviewed the medical
evidence and determined that Plaintiff is able to think, remember, and carry out simple and
probably some complex instructions with routine supervision, is able to adapt to changes
in the work environment and is able to relate superficially to supervisors, coworkers, and
the public. [R. 380, 384]. The Commissioner’s regulations instruct that the DDS medical
and psychological consultants are “highly qualified physicians and psychologists who are
also experts in Social Security disability evaluation” whose findings must be considered as
opinion evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)(i); 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(f)(2)(i). The reports
completed by the DDS experts reveal that the records from Tulsa Center for Behavioral
Health were considered. [R. 380].
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 3rd day of July, 2013.

4