BOYD v. ASTRUE

Filing 14

ORDER denying 9 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 11 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Alan N. Bloch on 2/24/2012. (kmw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DONETTE MARIE BOYD,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)
)

vs.

)

Civil Action No. 10-1441

)

MICHAEL J. AS TRUE , as
Commissioner of Social Security,

)
)
)

Defendant.

)

o

R D E R

AND NOW, this 24th day of February, 2012, upon consideration
of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court, upon
review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision, denying
plaintiff's claim for supplemental security income benefits under
Subchapter XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §1381, et seq.,
finds that the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial
evidence and, accordingly, affirms.

See 42 U.S.C. §405(g); Jesurum

v. Secretary of U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 48 F.3d
114, 117 (3d Cir. 1995) i Williams v. Sullivan, 970 F.2d 1178, 1182
(3d Cir. 1992), cert. denied sub nom., 507 U.S. 924 (1993); Brown v.
Bowen, 845 F.2d 1211, 1213 (3d Cir. 1988).
738 F. Supp. 942,

944

(W.D. Pa. 1990)

See also Berry v. Sullivan,

(if supported by substantial

evidence, the Commissioner's decision must be affirmed, as a federal
1

court may neither reweigh the evidence, nor reverse, merely because
it would have decided the claim differently) (citing Cotter v. Harris,
642 F.2d700, 705

(3dCir. 1981)).1

Plaintiff's central contention is that the ALJ erred in not
affording Dr. Mudry's October 2009 opinion controlling weight. The
Court disagrees. It is true that an ALJ must give a treating
physician's opinion controlling weight if it "is well-supported by
medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques
and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the]
case record." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) (2). However, anALJmayreject
the opinion of a treating physician if it is "conclusory and unsupported
by the medical evidence." Jones v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d 125, 129 (3d
Cir. 1991). An ALJ is entitled to give lesser weight to an opinion
of a treating physician where that opinion is provided in a "check-box
form" and the treating physician fails to offer an explanation to
support the conclusions contained therein. Prokopick v. Comm'r of
Soc. Sec., 272 Fed. Appx. 196, 199 (3d Cir. 2008) i Mason v. Shalala,
994 F.2d 1058, 1065 (3d Cir. 1993) (declaring that "[f]orm reports
in which a physician's obligation is only to check a box or fill in
a blank are weak evidence at best") .
Here, Dr. Mudry, one of Plaintiff's treating physicians, filled
out a check-box form on October 29, 2009, and opined that Plaintiff
was not capable of handling "even low stress jobs," that her impairments
would "frequently" interfere with her attention and concentration,
that she could sit and stand for "up to 15 minutes at one time," that
she would need a job that permitted her to shift positions at will,
that she likely would need to take an unscheduled break every hour
during an eight hour working day for 15 minutes at a time, that she
should never look down or up, and that she would likely be absent from
work more than four days per month due to her impairments.
(R.
290-293). He stated that these limitations had applied since November
27, 2007.
(Id. at 293). In his decision, the ALJ thoroughly recounted
the medical evidence and explained that he did not afford significant
weight to Dr. Mudry's opinion because he found it to be (1)
" [in] consistent with the obj ective medical signs and findings set forth
in [Dr. Mudry's] progress notes and in those of Dr. Le and Dr.
Altschuler," (2) inconsistent with Plaintiff's reported limitations,
(3) unsupported by any explanation, and (4) "not well-supported by
the preponderant weight of the evidence. "
(R. 25). The ALJ explained
how this opinion lacked support in the record, stated that the
2

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment (document No.9) is DENIED and defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment (document No. 11) is GRANTED.

s/Alan N. Bloch
United States District Judge
ecf:

Counsel of record

limi tations found by Dr. Murdy "appear red] rather extreme, and noted
that Plaintiff reported relief from her pain with injections and
medication.
Id.
After a review of the record, the Court finds that the ALJ
adequately explained his rationale for affording less than controlling
weight to Dr. Mudry's opinion and that substantial evidence supports
his decision to do so, as Dr. Mudry's opinion was given on a check-box
form, was not accompanied by supporting explanations, and was
outweighed by the other medical evidence in the record. See Hagner
v. Barnhart, 57 Fed. Appx. 981, 983 (3d Cir. 2003).
As such, the ALJ' s
hypothetical to the vocational expert was proper because it accurately
conveyed all of Plaintiff's credibly established limitations.
Rutherford v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 546, 554 (3d Cir. 2005).
II

3