SOMMERS v. COLVIN
Filing
14
OPINION and ORDER denying 10 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 12 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Donetta W. Ambrose on 3/8/17. (slh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHRISTINE MARIE SOMMERS,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
-vsNANCY A. BERRYHILL,1
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 16-417
AMBROSE, Senior District Judge
OPINION
Pending before the Court are Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 10 and
12). Both parties have filed briefs in support of their motions. (ECF Nos. 11 and 13). 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. 10) and granting Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 12).
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brought this action for review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security (ACommissioner@) denying her applications for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and
supplemental security income (“SSI”) pursuant to the Social Security Act (AAct@). Plaintiff filed
her applications alleging she has been disabled since May 25, 2010. (ECF No. 8-5, pp. 2, 9).
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), Karl Alexander, held a hearing on June 18, 2014. (ECF No.
8-2, pp. 29-56). On September 12, 2014, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled under the
Act. (ECF No. 8-2, pp. 11-24).
After exhausting all administrative remedies, Plaintiff filed the instant action with this court.
1
Nancy A. Berryhill became acting Commissioner of Social Security on January 23, 2017, replacing
Carolyn W. Colvin.
1
The parties have filed Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 10 and 12). 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
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,
2
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).
B.
Evaluation of Opinion Evidence of Record
Plaintiff asserts the ALJ erred in weighing the mental opinion evidence such that it is not
supported by substantial evidence. (ECF No. 11, pp. 9-12). Specifically, Plaintiff argues that
the ALJ erred in rejecting the medical opinion of a consulting examiner (Dr. Carosso) and a
therapist (Rachel A. Ramsey, LPC) in favor of the non-examining state agency doctor (Dr.
Schnepp) because the state agency opinion was “rendered prior to an obvious deterioration in
Plaintiff’s condition.”
Id. at p. 9. After a careful review of the evidence, I disagree.
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
3
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
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, Plaintiff did not have a treating psychologist. The ALJ considered the records
and opinion of Plaintiff’s treating source (Rachel A. Ramsey, LPC) and the consulting examiner
(Dr. Carosso). (ECF No. 8-2, pp. 11-24). He was unable to give these opinions significant
weight because they were internally inconsistent and inconsistent with the objective evidence of
4
record. Additionally, the ALJ rejected the opinion of Dr. Carosso because it appeared to be
predicated upon Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, which were not deemed to be fully credible by
the ALJ. (ECF No. 8-2, p. 22). I note that “a medical source does not transform the claimant's
subjective complaints into objective findings simply by recording them....” Hatton v. Comm'r, 131
F. App'x 877, 879 (3d Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
After a review of the record, I find the
reasons given by the ALJ in weighing these opinions to be valid and appropriate (internally
inconsistent and inconsistent with other evidence of record). See, 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527; 416.927
(Evaluating Opinion Evidence).
Furthermore, I find the reasons to be sufficiently explained and
supported by substantial evidence. (ECF No. 8-2, pp. 11-24).
Therefore, I find no error in this
regard on the part of the ALJ.
In contrast, the ALJ gave great weight to the opinion of the state agency psychologist, Dr.
Schnepp. (ECF No. 8-2, p. 22). State agency opinions merit significant consideration. See
SSR 96–6p (“Because State agency medical and psychological consultants ... are experts in the
Social Security disability programs, ... 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f) and 416.927(f) require [ALJs] ...
to consider their findings of fact about the nature and severity of an individual's impairment(s)....”).
The ALJ gave Dr. Schnepp’s opinion great weight because it was “consistent with the objective
evidence of record, as well as the work history and activities of the claimant. The claimant has no
history of inpatient treatment. Achievement testing indicated that, while her reading and spelling
skills were in the average range, her math skills were in the low range. Despite the claimant’s
history of depression and anxiety, she is currently working in a preschool part time.” (ECF No. 8-2,
p. 22). These are all valid and acceptable reasons for weighing opinion evidence. See, 20
C.F.R. §§404.1527; 416.927 (Evaluating Opinion Evidence). After a review of the record, I find
the reasons given by the ALJ in weighing the opinion of Dr. Schnepp to be sufficiently explained
and supported by substantial evidence of record. (ECF No. 8-2, pp. 11-26).
5
Plaintiff suggests, however, that the ALJ should not have given great weight to Dr.
Schnepp’s opinion because her condition started to deteriorate after Dr. Schnepp rendered his
opinion. (ECF No. 11, pp. 9-12). In support of this argument Plaintiff cites to the opinion of Dr.
Carosso. Id. at p. 12. Dr. Carosso’s opinion was rendered prior to Dr. Schnepp’s opinion. As a
result, I find no merit to this argument.
Plaintiff also cites to her testimony that she had to “cut her hours [at work] drastically AND
begin weekly counseling” as support for her position that her condition drastically changed. (ECF
No. 11, p. 12). The ALJ has found Plaintiff not entirely credible and, therefore, was not required
to accept this testimony. Moreover, I note that the law does not require that Plaintiff be able to
perform her current work, but that that she is able to perform other work existing in significant
numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1520, 416.920. Finally, I have already
found that there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s opinion that he was unable to give
the significant weight to the opinions of Rachel Ramsey and Dr. Carosso. Thus, I find no merit to
this argument.
Therefore, I find no error in this regard on the part of the ALJ. Consequently, remand is
not warranted on this basis.
C.
Credibility
Plaintiff also submits that the ALJ’s credibility determination is unsupported by substantial
evidence because it was “based largely on Plaintiff’s part time (sic) employment.” (ECF No. 11,
p. 13). Plaintiff argues that there is no evidence to suggest that simply because she worked parttime she has the ability to work full-time. Id. at pp. 13-14. To be clear, an ALJ is charged with
the responsibility of determining credibility. 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). The
ALJ must consider “the entire case record” in determining the credibility of an individual’s
6
statement. SSR 96-7p. 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. '416.929(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).
The ALJ found Plaintiff’s testimony on the matter was not credible and set forth the
reasons he came to this conclusion. (ECF No. 8-2, pp. 11-26). One of the factors the ALJ
considered in assessing Plaintiff’s credibility was Plaintiff’s testimony that she engaged in
part-time work. (ECF No. 8-2, pp. 11-26). In assessing consistency of Plaintiff’s statements, the
ALJ stated that: “The claimant reported that she had difficulties working full time or interacting with
new people. In October 2012, the claimant told her employment specialist, Cindy Hanzes, at the
Office of Vocational Rehabilitation, that her full time position at St. Rita CAP School was ‘so far, so
good.’ The claimant also noted that she was working for several school districts as a substitute.”
(ECF No. 8-2, p. 20). As I stated previously, the ALJ must consider “the entire case record” in
determining the credibility of an individual’s statement. SSR 96-7p. The ALJ appropriately
compared Plaintiff’s testimony with the documentation provided and found inconsistencies.
(ECF No. 8-2, p. 20). Furthermore, the ALJ’s determination of Plaintiff’s credibility was not based
solely on Plaintiff’s part-time work history. (ECF No. 8-2, pp. 19-22). Rather, it was just one of a
number of things, including, inter alia, Plaintiff’s daily activities of living and Plaintiff’s medical
7
evidence of record. Id. Therefore, even if the ALJ erred with regard to Plaintiff’s work history,
such error would be harmless.
Thus, I find the ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff's credibility as required by 20 C.F.R.
'416.929 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.
8-2, pp. 11-26). Therefore, I find no error in this regard. Consequently, remand is not warranted
on this basis.
An appropriate order shall follow.
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHRISTINE MARIE SOMMERS,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
-vsNANCY A. BERRYHILL,2
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 16-417
AMBROSE, Senior District Judge
ORDER OF COURT
THEREFORE, this 8th day of March, 2017, it is ordered that Plaintiff=s Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 10) is denied and Defendant=s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 12)
is granted.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Donetta W. Ambrose
Donetta W. Ambrose
United States Senior District Judge
2
Nancy A. Berryhill became acting Commissioner of Social Security on January 23, 2017, replacing
Carolyn W. Colvin.
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?