ILLIG v. COLVIN
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION re 13 granting MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by CAROLYN W. COLVIN,, 11 and denying MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by KEITH JEREMY ILLIG. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 10/09/2013. (Mitchell, Robert)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KEITH JEREMY ILLIG,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:13-cv-380
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
Mitchell, M.J.:
Presently before the Court for disposition are cross motions for summary judgment. For
the reasons set forth below, the plaintiff’s motion (ECF 11) will be denied; the defendant’s
motion (ECF 13) will be granted, and the determination of the Commissioner will be affirmed.
On March 20, 2013 Keith Jeremy Illig by his counsel, filed a complaint pursuant to
Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §405(g) for review of the
Commissioner's final determination disallowing his claim for Supplemental Security Income
benefits under Sections 1614 and 1631 of the Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §1381 cf.
The instant application for Supplemental Security Income Benefits was filed on July 15
and 30, 2009 (R.104,155-160). On November 23, 2009, benefits were denied (R.111-115). On
December 31, 2009, the plaintiff requested a hearing (R.118). A second hearing was held on
February 11, 2011 (R.36-70) and benefits were again denied on March 11, 2011 (R.20-32). On
March 31, 2011 and May 2, 2012 the plaintiff requested reconsideration of this determination
(R.18, 250-251) and on February 5, 2013, the denial of benefits was affirmed (R.1-4). The
instant complaint was filed on March 20, 2013.
1
In reviewing an administrative determination of the Commissioner, the question before
any court is whether there is substantial evidence in the agency record to support the findings of
the Commissioner that the plaintiff failed to sustain his/her burden of demonstrating that he/she
was disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389
(1971); Adorno v. Shalala, 40 F.3d 43 (3d Cir. 1994).
It is provided in 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g) that:
The court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and
transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or
reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security,
with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing. The findings
of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported
by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive....
Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Johnson v. Comm'r. 529 F.3d
198 (3d Cir.2008) and the court may not set aside a decision supported by substantial evidence.
Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358 (3d Cir.1999)
The purpose of the Supplemental Security Income Program is to provide additional
income to persons of limited resources who are aged, blind or disabled persons. 42 U.S.C.
§1381; Chalmers v. Shalala, 23 F. 3d 752 (3d Cir. 1994). To be eligible for such benefits, an
individual's income must not exceed a certain established maximum and he/she must fulfill
certain eligibility requirements.
As set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 416.905(a) disability is defined as:
the inability to do any substantial gainful activity by reason of
any medically determinable physical or mental impairment
which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or
can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12
months.
In addition, a person will be considered disabled if he/she is
2
(a) ... permanently and totally disabled as defined under a State
plan approved under title XIV or XVI of the Social Security Act,
as in effect for October 1972; (b) ... received aid under the State
plan ... for the month of December 1973 and for at least one
month prior to July 1973; and (c) ... continue[s] to be disabled as
defined under the State plan.
20 C.F.R. § 416.907.
A physical or mental impairment is defined in 20 C.F.R. §416.908 as an:
impairment [which] result[s] from anatomical, physiological, or
psychological abnormalities which [are demonstrated] by
medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic
techniques.
For purposes of determining whether or not the plaintiff met the eligibility requirements,
certain evidence was considered by the Commissioner.
At the hearings held on April 16, 2009 and February 11, 2011 (R.36-90) , the plaintiff
appeared with counsel (R.38,73) and testified that he was born on November 12, 1986 (R.44,74);
that he graduated from high school as a special needs student (R.47,75) and that he never worked
(R.48,77).
The plaintiff also testified that he becomes anxious around people (R.50,76) that he has
difficulty concentrating (R.54,81); that he sees a therapist monthly (R.49); that he experiences
panic attacks several times a week (R.61,76);that he takes medication for panic attacks and
depression (R.50,78); that the medication causes headaches and nausea (R.59,78); that he reads
the newspaper and plays computer and videogames and watches television (R.55,58,79); that he
goes shopping and performs some cooking and household chores (R.57,78) and that he sleeps
between five and six hours a day (R.59,80).
At the hearings a vocational expert also testified (R.65-69, 86-89). When the witness was
asked to assume an individual who could work at any vocation level in simple, routine, repetitive
3
jobs, without contact with the public and only superficial contact with his coworkers, the witness
responded that there were a large number of jobs such an individual could perform (R.65,86-88).
However, if the individual could not learn even simple tasks or had to miss work frequently, the
witness testified that he could not be employed (R.66). The same conclusion was reached if the
individual was unable to tolerate stress (R.67, 89).
In addition, certain other evidence was considered.
In a school report dated June 3, 2004, it is noted that the plaintiff successfully completed
12th grade and was entering an auto mechanics program (R.225-245).
The plaintiff’s Junior and Senior High School records disclose that he received
continuous learning support (R.259-312).
On May 10, 2000, the Monaca School District reported that the plaintiff was in special
educational support programs; that most of the time his behavior was well-balanced but he had
occasional conflicts. Continued participation in educational support programs was recommended
(R.212-224).
In a report of a psychological evaluation conducted on January 10, 2005, Julie Uran,
Ph.D. reported a full scale I.Q. of 73 (R.252-256).
The plaintiff was treated at the Beaver Valley Mental Health Services between May 15,
2007 and August 20, 2007 for depression. Medication was prescribed for a short period of time
(R.313-322).
The plaintiff was treated at the Staunton Clinic between January 1, 2008 and July 21,
2009 for depression, anxiety and low self- esteem. Medication and therapy were provided
(R.323-359).
4
In a report of a psychological evaluation conducted on October 19, 2009, Edward Currie,
Ph.D. diagnosed a social anxiety disorder as well as depression and a learning disorder. The
prognosis was guarded. The use of medication and therapy were noted (R.360-367).
In a report of a psychological assessment completed on November 9, 2009, Roger
Glover, Ph.D. noted no limitations except for the ability to understand and remember details,
carry out detailed instructions and interact with the public. The plaintiff was found to be only
partially credible. A learning disability, depressive disorder and anxiety disorder of only a mild
to moderate degree were noted (R.368-385).
In a report dated January 4, 2011, Timothy Goetze diagnosed back pain and a history of
anxiety (R.386-387).
In a report from the Staunton Clinic covering treatment during the period from January
11, 2008 through January 19, 2011, marked limitations on interacting with the public and coworkers or responding appropriately were noted, as well as an inability to tolerate even minimal
stress. Medication and therapy were prescribed (R.388-437).
Based on the evidence presented, the Commissioner determined:
The claimant has the following severe impairments: learning disability, depressive
disorder, anxiety disorder, and borderline intellectual functioning.
These impairments impose more than minimal restrictions on the claimant's
ability to perform basic work activity.
There is also evidence that the claimant complained of back pain on January 4,
2011…However, he reported that he did not take anything for it and had never
gone to physical therapy. The record contains no objective medical evidence of a
back impairment… The undersigned finds that it is not a severe medically
determinable impairment…
The claimant's mental impairments, considered singly and in combination, do not
meet or medically equal the criteria of listings …
In activities of daily living, the claimant has mild restriction[s]…
5
In social functioning, the claimant has moderate difficulties… The claimant has
consistently been described as cooperative. He has a girlfriend with whom he
lives, and testified that he spends time with family and friends, and goes to
restaurants or shopping.
With regard to concentration, persistence or pace, the claimant has moderate
difficulties. The claimant's borderline intellectual functioning, as well as
depression and anxiety, interfere with his ability to concentrate and attend to
tasks… The claimant enjoys playing video games, reading newspapers and
magazines, watching TV and watching movies. These activities all involve some
degree of concentration and attention…
As for episodes of decompensation, the claimant has experienced no episodes of
decompensation, which have been of extended duration…
Because the claimant's mental impairments do not cause at least two "marked"
limitations or one "marked" limitation and "repeated" episodes of
decompensation, each of extended duration, the "paragraph B" criteria… are not
satisfied.
***
After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the
claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of work at all
exertional levels but with the following nonexertional limitations: limited to
simple, routine, repetitive tasks, in a low-stress work environment, defined as
involving no complex decision making, no high productivity requirements, only
infrequent changes in the work place – in other words, a stable workplace; also
limited to jobs involving no contact with the public, only occasional contact with
coworkers, and no more than occasional interaction with supervisors…
In terms of the claimant's alleged borderline intellectual functioning, school
records indicate that the claimant had a learning disability, but was able to
perform adequately in regular education programs with a modified curriculum…
Regarding his anxiety and depression, the record contains consistent complaints
of nervousness around groups of people, sometimes resulting in panic attacks.
However, recent evidence shows that his symptoms have improved with
treatment, and [he] has had mostly normal mental status examinations. The
mental status examinations have shown consistently normal or unremarkable
thought organization, orientation, and impulse control…
The claimant's activities of daily living include household chores, shopping,
driving, and socializing …
6
As for the opinion evidence the undersigned has considered the opinion of the
claimant's treating psychiatrist… who opined that the claimant would be unable to
tolerate even minimal stress, would be unable to function under even minimal
pressure, and has marked limitations in the abilities to carry out detailed
instructions, to interact appropriately with the public, to interact appropriately
with supervisors or coworkers, and to respond appropriately to work pressure or
changes in a work setting. The mental status examinations in the psychiatric
progress notes accompanying this opinion do not support the severity of
impairment reflected in the opinion. The claimant had fairly normal mental status
examinations and reported fair to good mood. He told his counselor … that he
still experienced anxiety in stores, but was able to complete the task at hand.
Although the undersigned finds that the claimant has some limitations in these
areas, the opinion of [the treating psychiatrist] is an overstatement of the severity
of the limitations and is weighted appropriately.
The consultative psychologist … opined that the claimant has marked limitation
in his ability to make judgments on simple work-related decisions. This is not
supported by findings on mental status examination… Although the evidence
shows that the claimant experiences anxiety and panic attacks, and has a low
tolerance for stress, it does not establish that his impairment in this area rises to
the level of a marked impairment. The recent treatment records show that the
claimant has learned to control his anxiety to some degree, and the undersigned
finds that the claimant is [cap]able of responding appropriately to the work
pressures in a low-stress work environment…
In sum, the above residual functional capacity assessment is supported by the
objective medical evidence, including fairly normal mental status examinations,
the treatment history, which shows that the claimant has been improving with
medication and therapy, and the claimant's activities of daily living, which show
that he functions independently, has some meaningful interpersonal relationships,
and enjoys activities that involve some degree of concentration and attention…
Considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual
functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national
economy that the claimant can perform…
The claimant has not been under a disability … since July 15, 2009, the date the
application was filed… (R.25-31).
The evidence demonstrates that the plaintiff's physical ailments are not supported by the
record and while he does experience some mental limitations there too are not disabling. While
his treating psychologist opined that he could not be employed, the evidence of record support
the Commissioner's conclusion to the contrary and it is her duty to assess credibility. Diaz v.
7
Commissioner, 577 F.3d 500, 506 (3d Cir.2009). Provided plaintiff works in a low-stress
environment requiring minimal contact with others, he appears capable of engaging in
substantial gainful employ and for this reason, the Commissioner's conclusion is supported by
substantial evidence.
Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no material factual issues in dispute
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Lichtenstein v. UPMC, 691 F.3d 294,
300 (3d Cir. 2012). In the instant case there are no material issues of fact in dispute, and the
findings of the Commissioner are supported by substantial evidence. For this reason, the
plaintiff's motion for summary judgment will be denied; the defendant's motion for summary
judgment will be granted and the decision of the Commissioner will be affirmed.
An appropriate Order will be entered.
8
ORDER
AND NOW, this 9th day of October, 2013, for the reasons set forth in the foregoing
Memorandum, the plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 11) is DENIED; the
defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 13) is GRANTED, and the decision of the
Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
s/ Robert C. Mitchell
United States Magistrate Judge
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?