KACINKO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER denying 11 plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 13 defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. See Memorandum Judgment Order for further details. Signed by Judge Gustave Diamond on 8/12/13. (kw)
KACINKO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Doc. 15
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ROBERTA JACQUELINE KACINKO,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 12-1094
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER
2~
1
AND NOW, this ___ day of August, 2013, upon consideration of
the
parties'
cross motions
for
summary
judgment
pursuant
to
plaintiff's request for review of the decision of the Commissioner
of Social Security ("Commissioner
disability insurance benefits
income
("SS1")
under Titles
lt
)
denying her applications for
("DIBIt)
and supplemental security
II and XVI,
respectively,
of
the
Social Security Act, IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner's motion
for summary judgment (Document No. 13) be, and the same hereby is,
granted and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Document No.
11) be, and the same hereby is, denied.
As the factfinder, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") has an
obligation to weigh all of the facts and evidence of record and
may rej ect or discount
reasons for doing so.
Cir.
'Ill.A072
1999).
substantial
any evidence
if
Plummer v. Apfel,
the ALJ explains
the
186 F.3d 422,
(3d
429
Where the ALJ's findings of fact are supported by
evidence,
a
reviewing
court
is
bound
by
those
(Rev. 8/82)
Dockets.Justia.com
findings,
even
differently.
2001).
if
it
would
Fargnoli v.
Moreover,
it
is
have
decided
Massanari,
well
the
factual
247 F.3d 34,
settled
determined merely by the presence of
that
inquiry
38
(3d Cir.
disability
impairments
I
is
not
but by the
effect that those impairments have upon an individual's ability to
perform substantial gainful activity.
125,
129
(3d
Cir.
1991).
These
Jones v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d
well established principles
preclude a reversal or remand of the ALJ's decision here because
the record contains substant
evidence to support the ALJ I s
findings and conclusions.
Plaintiff filed her applications for DIB and SSI in May 2009,
alleging disability beginning on June 5,
vitamin
B12
deficiency,
low
back
pain,
disorder and anxiety and panic disorder.
were denied.
December
16
At plaintiff's request,
I
2010.
On February
2006,
due to asthma,
depression,
bipolar
Plaintiff's applications
an ALJ held a hearing on
18,
2011,
the ALJ
decision finding that plaintiff is not disabled.
issued a
The Appeals
Council denied plaintiff's request for review on June 28, 2012,
making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner.
The instant action followed.
Plaintiff, who has a high school education, was 39 years old
on her alleged onset date of disability, and is classified as a
younger
individual
under
the
regulations.
§§404 .1563 {c),
416.963 (c) .
experience
an emergency medical
as
Plaintiff
has
past
technician,
20
C.F.R.
relevant
work
secretary and
ambulance driver, but she has not engaged in substantial gainful
'Aon
(Rev, 8/82)
- 2
activity at any time since her alleged onset date.
After
reviewing
plaintiff's
medical
records
and
hearing
testimony from plaintiff and a vocational expert at the hearing,
the
ALJ
concluded that
meaning of the Act.
plaintiff
is
not
disabled within
the
Although the medical evidence established
that plaintiff suffers from the severe impairments of asthma,
vitamin B12 deficiency (anemia), low back pain, major depressive
disorder, bipolar disorder and generalized anxiety disorder/panic
disorder, those impairments, alone or in combination, do not meet
or equal the criteria of any of the listed impairments set forth
in Appendix 1 of 20 C. F. R., Subpart P, Regulation No. 4 ("Appendix
1") .
The ALJ found that plaintiff retains the residual functional
capacity to perform light work, but she is restricted by certain
non-exertional limitations.
In that regard, plaintiff is limited
to performing work that involves simple, routine, repetitive tasks
and very short,
simple
related decisions.
instructions,
as well as
simple work-
Plaintiff also is limited to working
stable environment that involves few changes.
a
Finally, plaintiff
is restricted to work that involves only occasional contact with
the
general
public
and
co-workers
(collectively,
the
"RFC
Finding") .
As a result of these limitations,
the ALJ determined that
plaintiff could not perform her past relevant work.
based upon the vocational expert's testimony,
that
plaintiff's
vocational
factors
""'A072
(Rev. 8/82)
- 3
and
However,
the ALJ concluded
residual
functional
capacity
enable
her
to
perform
other
work
significant numbers in the national economy,
garment sorter and mail clerk.
Accordingly,
that
exists
in
such as a marker,
the ALJ found that
plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the Act.
The Act defines "disability" as the inability to engage in
substantial gainful activity by reason of a physical or mental
impairment that can be expected to last for a continuous period of
at least twelve months.
42 U.S.C. §§423{d) (1) (A), 1382c(a) (3) (A).
The impairment or impairments must be so severe that the claimant
\\ is
not
only
unable
considering [her]
to
age,
do
[her]
previous
work
but
cannot,
education and work experience, engage in
any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the
national economy .... "
42 U.S.C. §§423 (d) (2) (A), 1382c(a) (3) (B).
The Commissioner has promulgated regulations that incorporate
a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether
a claimant is disabled.
claimant currently
The ALJ must determine:
(1) whether the
engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2)
if not, whether she has a severe impairment;
(3)
if so, whether
her impairment meets or equals the criteria listed in Appendix 1;
(4)
if not, whether the claimant's impairment prevents her from
performing her past relevant work;
and
(5)
if so,
whether the
claimant can perform any other work that exists in the national
economy,
in light
of
her age,
education,
~A072
(Rev. 8/82)
4
work experience and
residual
functional
416.920(a) (4).
capacity.l
20
C.F.R.
§§404.1520(a) (4),
If the claimant is found disabled or not disabled
at any step, further inquiry is unnecessary.
Id.
In this case, plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred at step 5
because:
(1)
he
gave
inadequate
weight
consulting psychologist who examined her;
to
the
and
opinion
(2)
of
a
he failed to
incorporate into the RFC Finding certain aspects of the state
agency consultant's opinion which he had given great weight.
The
court finds that these arguments lack merit.
Plaintiff first argues that the ALJ gave inadequate weight to
the
opinion
of
Dr.
Linda
Rockey,
who
performed
psychological consultative examination of plaintiff.
a
one-time
According to
the regulations, the ALJ will give an opinion the weight he deems
appropriate based on such factors as whether the physician treated
or examined the claimant,
whether the opinion is supported by
medical signs and laboratory findings and whether the opinion is
consistent
with
the
§§404 .1527 (c) (1) - (4),
factors,
record
as
a
whole.
416.927 (c) (1) - (4) .
See
In
the ALJ properly determined that Dr.
should be given
s weight.
20
light
C.F.R.
of
Rockey's opinion
(R. 19).
Dr. Rockey found that plaintiff could understand,
remember
and carry out shortt simple instructions t but she was moderately
lResidual functional capacity is defined as that which an
individual still is able to do de
te the limitations caused by her
impairments.
20 C.F.R. §§404.1545(a) (1)
416.945(a) (1).
In assessing
a claimant's residual functional capacity
the ALJ is required to
consider her abil
to meet the physical, mental, sensory and other
requirements of work.
20 C.F.R. §§404.1545(a) (4) t 416.945(a) (4).
I
I
~A072
(Rev. 8/82)
- 5
limited
in
her
instructions.
ability
(R. 270).
to
do
so
with
regard
to
detailed
Dr. Rockey also found that plaintiff was
markedly limited in her ability to interact with the public, co
workers and supervisors and in responding appropriately to work
pressures and changes.
(R.
Dr.
270).
Rockey concluded that
plaintiff would have difficulty maintaining consistent employment
on a daily basis.
(R.268).
The ALJ determined that Dr. Rockey's opinion was entitled to
"less
weight"
plaintiff's
because
it
subjective
appeared
to
complaints,
be
which
based
the
primarily
ALJ
found
on
not
entirely credible,2 and because her opinion was inconsistent with
other evidence of record.
(R.
discussed records
Dennis Wayne,
treating
from Dr.
psychiatrist,
restrictive assessment.
which
In that regard,
19).
did
(R. 18).
not
the ALJ
who was plaintiff's
support
Dr.
Rockey's
Indeed, Dr. Wayne's more recent
progress notes indicate that plaintiff's condition was controlled
with
her
complaints.
medications,
(R.
310,
she
312,
was
doing
well
and
she
had
no
328).
After reviewing the record, the court finds no error in the
ALJ's
consideration
and
weighing
of
Dr.
Rockey's
opinion.
ff complains that it was inappropriate for the ALJ to
ect Dr. Rockey's opinion because it was based on
iff's
subjective complaints to the doctor. To be clear, the ALJ concluded Dr.
Rockey's opinion was entitled to less weight because it was based on
plaintiff's subjective complaints, which the ALJ found to be lacking
credibil
,and because Dr. Rockey's opinion was inconsistent with the
other record evidence.
(R. 19). Thus, the ALJ did not simply reject
Dr. Rockey's opinion because it was based on plaintiff's
ions
to her; rather, it was one of the factors which the ALJ took into
account when considering and weighing Dr. Rockey's assessment.
~A072
(Rev. 8/82)
- 6
Moreover, despite giving Dr. Rockey's opinion less weight, the ALJ
nevertheless
Finding
tasks,
by
incorporated some of her assessment into the RFC
limiting plaintiff
simple
instructions,
work related
as
well
as
to
dec
work
simple,
ions
in
and
a
routine ,
very
stable
repetitive
short,
simple
environment
that
involves few changes and only occasional contact with the general
public and co-workers.
Plaintiff next argues that the ALJ failed to incorporate into
the RFC Finding certain aspects of the state agency consultant's
opinion which he
had given great weight.
More
specifically,
plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to adequately account for
the consultant's finding that plaintiff has moderate limitations
in concentration, persistence and pace.
The court finds that this
argument is without merit.
Dr.
Phyllis Brentzel,
psychologist, 3
reviewed
who is a non-examining state agency
plaintiff's
records
and
completed
a
residual functional capacity assessment of her ability to perform
various mental work-related tasks.
(R.
272-75).
Dr. Brentzel
determined that plaintiff was not significantly limited in her
ability to understand,
remember and carry out short and simple
instructions, but she was moderately limited in her ability to do
3 The
Regulations
specify
that
state
agency
psychological
consultants, such as Dr. Brentzel, "are highly qualified
psychologists . . . who are also experts in Social Security disability
evaluation. Therefore, administrative law judges must consider findings
and other opinions of State agency medical and psychological consultants
. . . as opinion evidence, except for the ultimate determination about
whether [a claimant is] disabled."
20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(e) (2) (i),
416.927 (el (2l (il .
~A072
(Rev 8/82)
-
7 -
so with respect to detailed instructions and she was moderately
limited in her ability to maintain attention and concentration for
extended periods.
plaintiff
was
(R.
moderately
Dr.
272).
limited
Brentzel
in
her
also
ability
found
to
appropriately with the general public and co-workers.
that
interact
(R. 273).
The ALJ gave Dr. Brentzel's assessment great weight because
he found that is was consistent with the record evidence as a
whole,
(R. 19), and he relied on that assessment in fashioning the
RFC Finding.
of
Dr.
The court finds no error in the ALJ's consideration
Brentzel's
opinion,
and
further
finds
that
the
ALJ
adequately incorporated Dr. Brentzel's assessment of plaintiff's
mental functional capacity into the RFC Finding.4
In conclusion, after carefully and methodically considering
all of the medical evidence of record,
the ALJ determined that
plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the Act.
ALJ's
findings
and
conclusions
are
supported
evidence and are not otherwise erroneous.
by
The
substantial
Therefore, the decision
of the Commissioner must be affirmed.
~~
Gustave Diamond
United States District Judge
4AS previously stated, the ALJ's RFC Finding limited plaintiff to
work that involves simple, routine, repetitive tasks and very short,
simple instructions, as well as simple work-related decisions and only
occasional contact with the general public and co-workers.
These
limitations reflect Dr. Brentzel's assessment of plaintiff's functional
ability to perform various mental work-related requirements.
""-A072
(Rev 8/82)
- 8
cc:
Lindsay Fulton Osterhout, Esq.
521 Cedar Way
Suite 200
Oakmont, PA 15139
Christy Wiegand
Assistant U.S. Attorney
700 Grant Street
Suite 4000
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
"'-Aon
(Rev. 8/82)
9
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?