Barnes v. Social Security Administration
Filing
26
OPINION AND ORDER by Judge John E Dowdell (AMENDED) (Re: 24 Opinion and Order,, Dismissing/Terminating Case,,,, Ruling on Report and Recommendation, ) (SAS, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
KERRY C. BARNES, SCHRONDA S.
TRAYLOR, BRANDON M. BARNES, and
LACEY T. BARNES on behalf of Evelyn
L. Barnes, deceased,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 13-CV-539-JED-FHM
AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER1
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate
Judge Frank H. McCarthy (Doc. 22) and plaintiffs’ Objection (Doc. 23) to the R&R. In the
R&R, Judge McCarthy found that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) evaluated the record in
accordance with applicable legal standards and that there is substantial evidence in the record to
support the ALJ’s decision denying Evelyn L. Barnes Social Security disability benefits. (Doc.
23 at 3-6). Accordingly, Judge McCarthy recommends that the defendant’s decision finding Ms.
Barnes not disabled be affirmed.2
Plaintiffs filed a timely Objection to the R&R. The Court must determine de novo any
part of the R&R that has been properly objected to, and “may accept, reject, or modify the
recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge
with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court has conducted a de novo review, fully
1
On October 2, 2015, the Court entered an Opinion and Order (Doc. 24) which mistakenly
identified plaintiff Evelyn Barnes as Evelyn Bates. (See pp. 3-4 of the Opinion). This Amended
Opinion and Order is filed to correct this error only.
2
Evelyn Barnes died on May 26, 2014, while this matter was pending and prior to the
filing of the R&R in this case. The plaintiffs named in the style of this case were substituted as
parties on September 5, 2014. (See Doc. 19, 20, 21).
considered the limited issues argued in plaintiffs’ Objection, and has determined that the
Objection should be denied and the R&R should be accepted in full.
1.
Hand Impairments
The gravamen of plaintiffs’ Objection focuses on one notation in a report of a
consultative examination performed by Dr. Ashok Kache.
According to plaintiffs, in
determining Evelyn Barnes’s hand complaints to be nonsevere, the ALJ ignored a notation by
Dr. Kache in response to the form’s question “Can the claimant effectively grasp tools such as a
hammer?” (See Doc. 23 at 2; R. 353). The handwritten notation next to that question is “on
occasion, yes.” (R. 353). Judge McCarthy rejected that argument and stated as follows:
Dr. Kache performed a consultative examination in which he made objective
findings about Plaintiff’s handgrip strength, that she was able to make a full fist
and approximate fingertips to her palms without difficulty. Dr. Kache also
recorded Plaintiff’s comment that she has to use both hands to pick up pots and
pans to keep them from falling. Dr. Kache found Plaintiff had 5/5 strength in her
arms and legs, and full range of motion in her fingers and hands. In answer to the
question on the form whether the claimant can effectively grasp tools such as a
hammer, Dr. Kache answered, “on occasion, yes.” The undersigned finds that the
ALJ did not ignore the opinion of Dr. Kache. The ALJ is not required to discuss
every piece of medical evidence in the record. Clifton v. Chater, 79 F.3d 1007,
1009-10 (10th Cir. 1996). The ALJ’s decision reflects that he considered Dr.
Kache’s findings. However, the ALJ stated he made the determination about
Plaintiff’s alleged hand impairments based on the totality of the evidence and
stated that he carefully considered the entire record. The Tenth Circuit has stated
that it will take the ALJ at his word when the entirety of the ALJ’s discussion of
the evidence and the reasons for his conclusions demonstrate that he adequately
considered the claimant’s impairments. Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048, 1070
(10th Cir. 2009). The undersigned finds that the ALJ’s decision demonstrates he
adequately considered Plaintiff’s impairments in this case.
(R&R at 4) (record citations omitted).
Plaintiffs argue that the record does not support Judge McCarthy’s determination on this
issue. (Doc. 23). After reviewing the entire record, the Court rejects the plaintiffs’ Objection
relating to hand impairments. As Judge McCarthy stated, the record in fact establishes that the
2
ALJ reviewed and considered Dr. Kache’s report of the consultative examination and fully
considered the record relating to Evelyn Barnes’s hand impairments, and the record as a whole
supports the ALJ’s determination that her hand complaints were nonsevere. The ALJ’s decision
references Dr. Kache’s report (which was Exhibit 1F) several times, and considered it for both
step two and step four findings. (See, e.g., R. 32-34). Moreover, the record, including Dr.
Kache’s report, supports the ALJ’s determination that “[b]ased on the totality of the evidence ...
the claimant’s impairments of hand problems represent no more than a slight abnormality and
would have only a minimal affect [sic] on the claimant’s ability to perform work-related
activities and thus, are nonsevere.” (R. 32; see R. 348-354). Dr. Kache’s “Hand/Wrist Sheet,”
which contains the single notation that plaintiffs reference in their Objection, indicates that
Evelyn Barnes had a full range of motion in hands and wrist, she could “effectively oppose the
thumb to the fingertips,” and “manipulate small objects.” (R. 353).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts Magistrate McCarthy’s findings and
conclusions on the ALJ’s determination that Evelyn Barnes’s hand impairment was not severe.
2.
Record Development Regarding Pain
In the briefing that was considered by Judge McCarthy, Evelyn Barnes argued that the
ALJ “failed to fulfill his duty to properly develop [the] record when he failed to obtain the
further evaluation of [her] physical pain impairments....” (Doc. 16 at 10). She requested that the
case be “remanded with instructions for the ALJ to properly develop the record by obtaining the
consultative pain examination recommended by Dr. Dudney.” (Id.). That request was based
upon Dr. Dudney’s chart note, “[r]equest a pain clinic consultation for possible [illegible] ... for
radiculopathy and possible spinal stenosis.” (See Doc. 450; Doc. 16 at 8 [citing Doc. 450]).
Unfortunately, Evelyn Barnes died on May 26, 2014, as a result of ischemic cardiomyopathy
3
caused by acute myocardial infarction (heart failure after heart attack). (Doc. 19-1). Plaintiffs
thus acknowledge that a remand for a consultative pain examination “was rendered ‘fruitless’ by
[Evelyn Barnes’s] death,” but they assert a different reason for remand and ask for a
supplemental hearing with expert medical testimony “regarding the progression of Ms. Barnes’
ultimately fatal medical condition and the limitations caused by her combination of severe
impairments prior to the time of her death.” (Doc. 23 at 2-3).
Following a review of the record, including Dr. Dudney’s chart note, the Court finds no
error in the ALJ’s decision to deny further consultative examination, which was requested by
Evelyn Barnes’s counsel at the hearing before the ALJ. (R. 34). The Court thus agrees with the
following analysis in Judge McCarthy’s R&R, and will adopt the R&R on this issue:
The undersigned finds no error in the ALJ’s treatment of the request for additional
evaluation. The ALJ specifically addressed the request for additional testing,
finding that “there is more than enough evidence to decide the claimant’s case
without delay.”
And ALJ has “broad latitude in ordering consultative
examinations.” Hawkins v. Chater, 113 F.3d 1162, 1166 (10th Cir. 1997). The
decision to purchase a consultative examination is made on an individual case
basis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1519. Generally, a consultative examination may be
ordered to resolve an inconsistency in the record or when the evidence as a whole
is not sufficient to make a decision. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1591a(b). In this case, there
is no direct conflict in the medical evidence requiring resolution and the medical
evidence in the record is not inconclusive. In any event, since [Evelyn Barnes] is
deceased remand for a consultative examination would be fruitless. The
undersigned finds that that ALJ did not err in failing to order a consultative
examination for a pain specialist.
(Doc. 22 at 5-6). The foregoing statements in the R&R are accurate.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ Objection (Doc. 23) is
overruled, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) is hereby accepted, and the
Commissioner’s decision finding Evelyn Barnes not disabled is affirmed. A separate
judgment will be entered forthwith.
4
SO ORDERED this 6th day of October, 2015.
5
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?