SLUPSKI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Filing
11
OPINION AND ORDER denying 7 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 9 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Donetta W. Ambrose on 5/31/16. (slh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RICHARD JOHN SLUPSKI, JR.,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
-vsCAROLYN W. COLVIN,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 15-197
AMBROSE, Senior District Judge.
OPINION
and
ORDER OF COURT
SYNOPSIS
Pending before the Court are Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 7 and 9).
Both parties have filed Briefs in Support of their Motions. (ECF Nos. 8 and 10). After careful
consideration of the submissions of the parties, and based on my Opinion set forth below, I am
denying Plaintiff=s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 7) and granting Defendant=s Motion
for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 9).
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff has brought this action for review of the final decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security (ACommissioner@) denying his application for disability insurance benefits
pursuant to the Social Security Act (AAct@). Plaintiff filed his application for benefits alleging he
had been disabled since September 1, 2007, but later amended the alleged onset date to
September 29, 2010. (ECF No. 5-7, p. 5; ECF No. 5-4, p. 10). Administrative Law Judge James
Pileggi issued a partially favorable decision, finding that Plaintiff was disabled from September 29,
2010 through December 30, 2011, but not thereafter. (ECF No. 5-4, pp. 10-19). The Appeals
1
Council vacated the ALJ’s decision “only with respect to the issue of disability after December 31,
2011.” (ECF No. 5-4, p. 28). On remand, a new Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), Daniel F.
Cusick, held a video hearing on January 24, 2014. (ECF No. 5-3). On March 14, 2014, the new
ALJ issued a partially favorable decision finding Plaintiff disabled from September 29, 2010
through June 13, 2012, but not thereafter. (ECF No. 5-2, pp 21-33).
After exhausting all
administrative remedies, Plaintiff filed this action.
The parties have filed Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 7 and 9). The
issues are now ripe for review.
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
The standard of review in social security cases is whether substantial evidence exists in
the record to support the Commissioner=s decision. Allen v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 37, 39 (3d Cir.
1989). Substantial evidence has been defined as Amore than a mere scintilla. It means such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate.@ Ventura v. Shalala, 55 F.3d
900, 901 (3d Cir. 1995), quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). Additionally,
the Commissioner=s findings of fact, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive. 42
U.S.C. '405(g); Dobrowolsky v. Califano, 606 F.2d 403, 406 (3d Cir. 1979). A district court
cannot conduct a de novo review of the Commissioner=s decision or re-weigh the evidence of
record. Palmer v. Apfel, 995 F.Supp. 549, 552 (E.D. Pa. 1998). Where the ALJ's findings of fact
are supported by substantial evidence, a court is bound by those findings, even if the court would
have decided the factual inquiry differently. Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 360 (3d Cir. 1999).
To determine whether a finding is supported by substantial evidence, however, the district court
must review the record as a whole. See, 5 U.S.C. '706.
To be eligible for social security benefits, the plaintiff must demonstrate that he cannot
engage in substantial gainful activity because of a medically determinable physical or mental
2
impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to
last for a continuous period of at least 12 months. 42 U.S.C. '423(d)(1)(A); Brewster v. Heckler,
786 F.2d 581, 583 (3d Cir. 1986).
The Commissioner has provided the ALJ with a five-step sequential analysis to use when
evaluating the disabled status of each claimant.
20 C.F.R. '404.1520(a).
The ALJ must
determine: (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if not,
whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) if the claimant has a severe impairment,
whether it meets or equals the criteria listed in 20 C.F.R., pt. 404, subpt. P., appx. 1; (4) if the
impairment does not satisfy one of the impairment listings, whether the claimant=s impairments
prevent him from performing his past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant is incapable of
performing his past relevant work, whether he can perform any other work which exists in the
national economy, in light of his age, education, work experience and residual functional capacity.
20 C.F.R. '404.1520.
The claimant carries the initial burden of demonstrating by medical
evidence that he is unable to return to his previous employment (steps 1-4). Dobrowolsky, 606
F.2d at 406.
Once the claimant meets this burden, the burden of proof shifts to the
Commissioner to show that the claimant can engage in alternative substantial gainful activity
(step 5). Id.
A district court, after reviewing the entire record may affirm, modify, or reverse the decision
with or without remand to the Commissioner for rehearing. Podedworny v. Harris, 745 F.2d 210,
221 (3d Cir. 1984).
In closed period cases, the ALJ must review the record under the “medical improvement”
framework. Chrupcala v. Heckler, 829 F.2d 1269, 1274 (3d Cir.1987). As the Third Circuit has
articulated, “[f]airness would certainly seem to require an adequate showing of medical
improvement whenever an ALJ determines that disability should be limited to a specific period.”
Chrupcala, 829 F.2d at 1274. The medical improvement standard is codified 20 C.F.R. §
3
404.1594(f).1
1
20 C.F.R. §404.1594(f) provides:
Evaluation steps. To assure that disability reviews are carried out in a uniform manner, that decisions of
continuing disability can be made in the most expeditious and administratively efficient way, and that any
decisions to stop disability benefits are made objectively, neutrally and are fully documented, we will follow
specific steps in reviewing the question of whether your disability continues. Our review may cease and
benefits may be continued at any point if we determine there is sufficient evidence to find that you are still
unable to engage in substantial gainful activity. The steps are as follows. (See paragraph (i) of this section
if you work during your current period of entitlement based on disability or during certain other periods.)
(1) Are you engaging in substantial gainful activity? If you are (and any applicable trial work period has been
completed), we will find disability to have ended (see paragraph (d)(5) of this section).
(2) If you are not, do you have an impairment or combination of impairments which meets or equals the
severity of an impairment listed in appendix 1 of this subpart? If you do, your disability will be found to
continue.
(3) If you do not, has there been medical improvement as defined in paragraph (b)(1) of this section? If there
has been medical improvement as shown by a decrease in medical severity, see step (4). If there has been
no decrease in medical severity, there has been no medical improvement. (See step (5).)
(4) If there has been medical improvement, we must determine whether it is related to your ability to do work
in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section; i.e., whether or not there has been an
increase in the residual functional capacity based on the impairment(s) that was present at the time of the
most recent favorable medical determination. If medical improvement is not related to your ability to do
work, see step (5). If medical improvement is related to your ability to do work, see step (6).
(5) If we found at step (3) that there has been no medical improvement or if we found at step (4) that the
medical improvement is not related to your ability to work, we consider whether any of the exceptions in
paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section apply. If none of them apply, your disability will be found to continue.
If one of the first group of exceptions to medical improvement applies, see step (6). If an exception from the
second group of exceptions to medical improvement applies, your disability will be found to have ended.
The second group of exceptions to medical improvement may be considered at any point in this process.
(6) If medical improvement is shown to be related to your ability to do work or if one of the first group of
exceptions to medical improvement applies, we will determine whether all your current impairments in
combination are severe (see § 404.1521). This determination will consider all your current impairments and
the impact of the combination of those impairments on your ability to function. If the residual functional
capacity assessment in step (4) above shows significant limitation of your ability to do basic work activities,
see step (7). When the evidence shows that all your current impairments in combination do not significantly
limit your physical or mental abilities to do basic work activities, these impairments will not be considered
severe in nature. If so, you will no longer be considered to be disabled.
(7) If your impairment(s) is severe, we will assess your current ability to do substantial gainful activity in
accordance with § 404.1560. That is, we will assess your residual functional capacity based on all your
current impairments and consider whether you can still do work you have done in the past. If you can do
such work, disability will be found to have ended.
(8) If you are not able to do work you have done in the past, we will consider whether you can do other work
given the residual functional capacity assessment made under paragraph (f)(7) of this section and your age,
education, and past work experience (see paragraph (f)(9) of this section for an exception to this rule). If you
can, we will find that your disability has ended. If you cannot, we will find that your disability continues.
(9) We may proceed to the final step, described in paragraph (f)(8) of this section, if the evidence in your file
about your past relevant work is not sufficient for us to make a finding under paragraph (f)(7) of this section
about whether you can perform your past relevant work. If we find that you can adjust to other work based
solely on your age, education, and residual functional capacity, we will find that you are no longer disabled,
and we will not make a finding about whether you can do your past relevant work under paragraph (f)(7) of
this section. If we find that you may be unable to adjust to other work or if § 404.1562 may apply, we will
4
B.
Treating Physicians
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in giving little weight to the opinions of two treating
doctors, Dr. Habusta and Dr. Schenk, for the period beginning June 14, 2012. (ECF No. 8, pp.
4-6). The amount of weight accorded to medical opinions is well-established. Generally, the ALJ
will give more weight to the opinion of a source who has examined the claimant than to a
non-examining source. 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(1). In addition, the ALJ generally will give more
weight to opinions from a treating physician, “since these sources are likely to be 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 or from reports of individual examinations,
such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations.” Id. § 416.927(c)(2). If the ALJ finds
that “a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [a claimant’s]
impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic
techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence [of] record,” he must give
that opinion controlling weight. Id. Also, “the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a
whole, the more weight [the ALJ generally] will give to that opinion.” Id. § 416.927(c)(4).
In the event of conflicting medical evidence, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has
explained:
“A cardinal principle guiding disability determinations is that the ALJ accord
treating physicians’ reports great weight, especially ‘when their opinions reflect
expert judgment based on continuing observation of the patient’s condition over a
prolonged period of time.’” Morales v. Apfel, 225 F.3d 310, 317 (3d Cir. 2000)
(quoting Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 429 (3d Cir. 1999)). However, “where . .
. the opinion of a treating physician conflicts with that of a non-treating,
non-examining physician, the ALJ may choose whom to credit” and may reject the
treating physician’s assessment if such rejection is based on contradictory medical
assess your claim under paragraph (f)(7) of this section and make a finding about whether you can perform
your past relevant work.
20 C.F.R. § 404.1594(f).
5
evidence. Id. Similarly, under 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(2), the opinion of a treating
physician is to be given controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medical
evidence and is consistent with other evidence in the record.
Becker v. Comm’r of Social Sec. Admin., No. 10-2517, 2010 WL 5078238, at *5 (3d Cir. Dec. 14,
2010). Although the ALJ may choose whom to credit when faced with a conflict, he “cannot reject
evidence for no reason or for the wrong reason.” Diaz v. Comm’r of Soc. Security, 577 F.3d 500,
505 (3d Cir. 2009).
In this case, the ALJ gave little weight to the opinions of Dr. Habusta and Dr. Schenk for
the period beginning June 14, 2012 because both opinions rely on Plaintiff’s “partial
weight-bearing as a basis for part of their opinions” and that it conflicted with the medical evidence
showing that Plaintiff’s fracture had healed and that he was cleared for full weight-bearing. (ECF
No. 5-2, p. 31). This is an appropriate, valid and acceptable reason for discounting opinion
evidence. See, 20 C.F.R. §404.1527 (Evaluating Opinion Evidence).
Furthermore, after a
review of the record, I find the same is based on substantial evidence of record. (ECF No. 5-2,
pp. 21-33; ECF No. 5-19, p. 8, 10), Therefore, I find no error in this regard on the part of the ALJ.
Consequently, remand is not warranted on this basis.
C.
Inaccurate statements
Plaintiff also summarily suggests that the ALJ made a number of inaccurate statements.
(ECF No. 8, pp. 6-7). I have reviewed each such allegation. Contrary to Plaintiff’s position, I do
not find the identified statements to be inaccurate. Further, I find there is substantial evidence of
record to support the ALJ’s statements. (ECF No. 5-2, pp. 21-33). As such, remand is not
warranted on this basis.
D.
Residual Functional Capacity (RFC)2
2
RFC refers to the most a claimant can still do despite his limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a),
416.945(a). The assessment must be based upon all of the relevant evidence, including the medical
records, medical source opinions, and the individual’s subjective allegations and description of his own
limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§416.945; 404.1527.
6
Plaintiff further argues that the ALJ erred in formulating the RFC because he did not
mention or include an evaluation of his low back issues/pain. (ECF No. 8, pp. 6-7). After a
review of the record, I disagree. Contrary to Plaintiff’s position, the ALJ specifically mentioned
and considered Plaintiff’s low back pain when determining Plaintiff’s RFC. See, ECF No. 5-2, p.
30. Thus, I find no merit to this argument.
E.
Severe Impairment
Without much more than a fleeting reference in a sentence, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ
erred in failing to mention his low back condition at step 2. (ECF No. 8, p. 6). This conclusion
falls woefully short of properly placing the issue before me. Nonetheless, after a review of the
record, I disagree.
At step 2 of the analysis, an ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a medically
determinable impairment that is severe or a combination of impairments that is severe. 20
C.F.R. §404.1520(a). An impairment is not severe if it does not significantly limit the physical or
mental ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(c), §404.1521(a). If a claimant is
found to have a severe impairment, then the ALJ proceeds to the next step. 20 C.F.R.
§404.1520(a).
In this case, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had severe impairments. (ECF No. 5-2, p. 25).
Thereafter, the ALJ proceeded to the next steps. Id, pp. 26-33. Thus, Plaintiff was not denied
benefits at step 2. Rather, the ALJ proceeded beyond step 2.
In so doing, the ALJ acknowledged that in making the RFC determination he was to
consider all impairments, including any impairment that is not severe. (ECF No. 5-2, p. 26).
Consequently, the ALJ proceeded to consider the Plaintiff’s severe and non-severe impairments
in the evaluation process and determining Plaintiff’s RCF, including Plaintiff’s low back condition.
(ECF No. 5-2, pp. 26-33). Therefore, I find any purported error was harmless such that a remand
7
on this basis is not warranted. Salles v. Commissioner of Social Sec., 229 Fed.Appx. 140,
144-145, n. 2, 2007 WL 1827129 (3d Cir. 2007); Sheeler v. Astrue, No. 08-64J, 2009 WL 789892,
4 -5 (W.D.Pa. March 24, 2009); Hanke v. Astrue, No. 12-2364, 2012 WL 6644201, *4 (7th Cir. Dec.
21, 2012).
F.
Credibility
Plaintiff’s final argument is that the ALJ erred in assessing his credibility.
pp. 7-8).
(ECF No. 8,
In evaluating whether a plaintiff’s statements are credible, the ALJ will consider
evidence from treating, examining and consulting physicians, observations from agency
employees, and other factors such as the claimant's daily activities, descriptions of the pain,
precipitating and aggravating factors, type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of
medications, treatment other than medication, and other measures used to relieve the pain. 20
C.F.R. '404.1529(c); SSR 96-7p. The ALJ will also look at inconsistencies between the claimant's
statements and the evidence presented. Id. I must defer to the ALJ=s credibility determinations,
unless they are not supported by substantial evidence. Smith v. Califano, 637 F.2d 968, 972 (3d
Cir. 1981); Baerga v. Richardson, 500 F.2d 309, 312 (3d Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 931
(1975).
In this case, the ALJ followed the proper method to determine the Plaintiff’s credibility. As
laid out in his decision, the ALJ considered the factors set forth above. (ECF No. 5-2, pp. 21-33).
Thus, I find the ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff's credibility as required by 20 C.F.R. '404.1529
and SSR 96-7p. Furthermore, based on the entire record as a whole, I find there is substantial
evidence to support the ALJ=s decision to find Plaintiff not entirely credible. (ECF No. 5-2, pp.
21-33). Therefore, I find no error in this regard. Consequently, remand is not warranted on this
basis.
8
In sum, under the applicable standards of review and the current state of the record, this
Court finds that there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s decision that Plaintiff was
disabled for a closed period of time from September 29, 2010 through June 13, 2012, and that as
of June 14, 2012, Plaintiff’s condition medically improved such that Plaintiff was capable of light
work with certain conditions.
An appropriate order shall follow.
9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RICHARD JOHN SLUPSKI, JR.,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
-vsCAROLYN W. COLVIN,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 15-197
AMBROSE, Senior District Judge.
ORDER OF COURT
THEREFORE, this 31st day of May, 2016, it is ordered that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 7) denied and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 9) is
granted.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Donetta W. Ambrose
Donetta W. Ambrose
United States Senior District Judge
10
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?