STEWART v. ASTRUE

Filing 17

ORDER denying 12 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 14 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Alan N. Bloch on 1/2/2014. (kmw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GEDE LOVE STEWART,

Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action No. 13-73

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

o

R D E R

AND NOW, this 2nd day of January, 2014, 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)

i

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)
Bowen, 845 F.2d 1211, 1213 (3d Cir. 1988)
738 F. Supp. 942,

944

(W.D. Pa. 1990)

i

Brown v.

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.2d 700, 705 (3d Cir. 1981)).1

After careful review of the record, the Court finds that Plaintiff's
contentions carry no merit whatsoever. As set forth in the Administrative Law Judge
("ALJ") 's thorough and detailed decision, the record falls woefully short of
demonstrating that Plaintiff is an individual whose impairments completely preclude
her from working. First, there is a dearth of actual medical evidence in the record,
and of the records that do exist, none begin to support a finding of disability.
To the contrary, the picture that is painted by this record is that of a new mother
who quit working in November of 2009, not because of any disabling conditions, but
because she began a new chapter in her life - - a chapter that would overwhelm almost
any individual in that position. Indeed, Plaintiff stopped working around the same
time that she gave birth to her youngest child and moved to Pittsburgh from Maryland
to be with her boyfriend and father of her child. See (R. 29, 186 87). As the ALJ
discussed, Plaintiff provided no details as to why her mental health issues suddenly
forced her to stop working, and, even though Plaintiff alleged an onset date of
September 2009 in her application for benefits, she admitted to working until November
of that year.
(R. 126). The ALJ further noted that the record contained no
evidence of mental health treatment prior to January of 2010, two months before
Plaintiff filed for benefits, even though she testified that she had been struggling
with a bipolar disorder diagnosis since the age of thirteen. See (R. 29, 39). The
ALJ also noted that when Plaintiff's treatment did begin, it consisted of nothing
more than conservative medication and continued therapy sessions, treatment which
is inconsistent with complaints of a severely disabling mental impairment.
(R.
31,191).
Second, the Court finds that the ALJ did an exceptional job of setting forth
her discussion of the medical evidence and her rationale for why Plaintiff is able
to perform work consistent with her Residual Functional Capacity (nRFCfI)
determination. The Court notes that, in rejecting the finding that Plaintiff had
a marked limitation in dealing with the public, the ALJ stated that there were no
corroborating reports of aggressive behavior that would gi ve credence to that alleged
limitation and the Court finds that substantial evidence supports that conclusion.
See (R. 26). Furthermore, as the Defendant points out, the actual recommendation
from the non-examining state agency psychologist was set forth under Section III
of the report which is the section that is used to record the actual mental RFC
determination and "explain[] the conclusions indicated in Section I, in terms of
the extent to which these mental capacities or functions could or could not be
performed in work settings./I See Program Operations Manual System (POMS) DI 24510.060
Mental Residual Functional Capacity Assessment,
https: / /secure. ssa. gov/ apps10/poms. nsf/lnx/0424510060 (last visited September 24,
2013). Section III of the report stated, among other things, that Plaintiff "can
perform simple, routine repetitive work in a stable environment" and it made no
reference to Plaintiff's purported inability to interact with the public. See (R.
224). Indeed, the marked limitation finding was set forth in Section I "which is
merely a worksheet to aid in deciding the presence and degree of functional
limitations and the adequacy of the documentation and does not constitute the RFC

2

Therefore

I

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for

Summary Judgment (document No. 12) is DENIED and defendant's Motion
for Summary Judgment (document No. 14) is GRANTED.

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

Counsel of record

assessment.1f See POMS (emphasis in original). In any event, the Court notes that
the ALJ is not bound to accept every limitation that is found by a medical
professional, but rather only the ones that she finds are credibly established by
the record. See Salles v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 229 Fed. Appx. 140, 147 (3d Cir.
2007).
Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, the ALJ did not err by incorporating
into her RFC finding only those limitations which she found to be credibly established
by the objective medical evidence and the Court finds that the ALJ' s RFC determination
as well as her ensuing hypothetical to the vocational expert both enj oy the support
of substantial record evidence.
Finally, the Court finds that the ALJ evaluated the medical opinion evidence
properly and in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations and that
substantial record evidence supports her evaluation. The ALJ gave a detailed
explanation for why the medical source statements from the mental health providers
were not given controlling weight, and, in that regard, the Court notes that Allison
Walker was a Licensed Professional Counselor - - not a nurse -- and as such, her opinion
was never entitled to controlling weight. See (Doc. No. 13) i see also 20 CFR 416.913,
416.927. In any event, the ALJ discussed at length her justification for why the
medical source statements from Dr. Jahangeer and Ms. Walker were inconsistent with
and contradicted by the other medical evidence of record, including their own notes
and prior findings. See (R. 25-27, 31-33). The Court finds that the ALJ discharged
her duty because she (i) demonstrated her consideration of all the relevant medical
evidence, (ii) addressed the contradictory evidence in the record which conflicted
with her findings, and (iii) explained why that contrary evidence was rejected or
not given controlling weight. See Cotterv. Harris, 642 F.2d 700, 705 (3d Cir. 1981).
Indeed, the overarching theme of the ALJ' s decision was the complete lack of obj ective
medical evidence which corroborated or even tended to support Plaintiff's complaints
of severely disabling impairments and the Court agrees with the ALJ's finding that
such corroborating evidence was woefully lacking in the record. Plaintiff's
subjective complaints were corroborated only by her own self-reports, which -- for
the reasons discussed by the ALJ - were not particularly credible. ~~~ (R.27-33) .
To that end, the Court finds that the ALJ's credibility determination is
well-supported by the record and that Plaintiff's arguments to the contrary are
completely unpersuasive, particularly given the minimal treatment record, the
inconsistencies in the record that were highlighted and discussed by the ALJ, and
the evidence that Plaintiff was displaying drug-seeking behavior when she visited
the emergency room 32 timeswithinanine-monthperiod. See (R. 26 32).
Accordingly,
the Court concludes that substantial record evidence supports the ALJ' s determination
of non-disability.

3