CALLIS v. ASTRUE
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER denying 13 plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 15 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 5/21/12. (kw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JEFFREY CALLIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 11-194J
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE ,
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER
AND NOW, this
of the parties'
~y
of May, 2012, upon due consideration
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
denying his application for
("DIB")
and supplemental security
income ("SSr") under Title II and Title XVI, respectively, of the
Social Security Act ("Act"), IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner's
motion for summary judgment
hereby is,
(Document No.
15)
be,
and the same
granted and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment
(Document No. 13) 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 reject
reasons for doing so.
Cir.
~A072
(Rev. 8/82)
1999) .
substantial
any evidence
or discount
the ALJ explains
if
Plummer v. Apfel,
the
429
(3d
186 F.3d 422,
Where the ALJ's findings of fact are supported by
evidence,
a
reviewing
court
is
bound
by
those
findings,
even if
differently.
2001).
it
would have
Fargnoli v.
Moreover,
it
is
decided
Massanari,
well
the
factual
247 F.3d 34,
settled
that
determined merely by the presence of
38
disability
impairments,
inquiry
(3d Cir.
is
not
but by the
effect that those impairments have upon an individual's ability to
perform substantial gainful activi ty.
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 substantial evidence to support his findings
and conclusions.
Plaintiff filed his DIB and SSI applications on May 18, 2009,
alleging disability as of January I,
2009,
due to depression.
Plaintiff's applications were denied.
At plaintiff's request, an
ALJ held a hearing on August 24, 2010, at which plaintiff appeared
represented by counsel.
On October 7,
2010,
the ALJ issued a
The Appeals
decision finding that plaintiff is not disabled.
Council denied plaintiff's request for review on June 28, 2011,
making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner.
The instant action followed.
Plaintiff, who has a high school education, was 49 years old
on his alleged onset date of disability and is classified as a
younger
individual
under
§§404 .1563 (c),
416.963 (c) .
experience
a
delivery
as
driver
machine
and
the
regulations.
Plaintiff
operator,
unloader,
but
has
past
roofer,
he
20
has
C.F.R.
relevant
laborer,
not
work
stocker,
engaged
in
substantial gainful activity at any time since his alleged onset
~A072
(Rev. 8/82)
- 2
date of disability.
After
reviewing
plaintiff's
medical
records
and
hearing
testimony from plaintiff and a vocational expert at the hearing,
the ALJ concluded that he is not disabled within the meaning of
the Act.
Although the ALJ found that plaintiff suffers from the
severe impairments of degenerative disc disease of the lumbar
spine,
moderate left neural foraminal stenosis at LI-L2,
mild
foraminal stenosis at L4-LS and LS-Sl, dyskinesis of the heart,
antisocial
personality
disorder,
anxiety
disorder,
major
depressive disorder and polysubstance abuse, he determined that
those impairments, alone or in combination, do not meet or equal
the
criteria of
any of
the
listed
impairments
set
Appendix 1 of 20 C.F.R., Subpart P, Regulation No.4
forth
in
("Appendix
1") .
The ALJ found that plaintiff retains the residual functional
capacity to perform light work,
limitations.
along with a number of other
Plaintiff requires
the option to sit and stand
during the work day approximately every 30 minutes.
In addition,
plaintiff is limited to simple, routine and repetitive tasks that
are not performed in a fast-paced production environment, and he
requires work that involves only simple, work-related decision and
relatively few work place changes.
Finally, plaintiff is limited
to
supervisors,
occasional
interaction
with
he
interaction with co-workers and the general public,
limited to working primarily with objects
(collectively, the "RFC Finding") .
~A072
(Rev. 8/82)
-
3
must
avoid
and he is
rather than people
As a result of these limitations,
the ALJ determined that
plaintiff could not perform his past relevant work.
based upon the vocational expert's testimony,
However,
the ALJ concluded
that plaintiff's age, educational background, work experience and
residual functional capacity enable him to perform other work that
exists in significant numbers in the national economy, such as a
stock checker for apparel, a housekeeper/cleaner or a dog bather.
Accordingly, 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
to
do
his
previous
work
but
cannot,
considering his age, education and work experience, engage in any
other
kind
of
substantial
national economy .... "
gainful
work
which
42 U.S.C. §§423(d) (2) (A),
exists
in
the
1382c(a) (3) (B).
The Commissioner has promulgated regulations that incorporate
a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether
a claimant is disabled.
The ALJ must determine:
(1) whether the
claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2)
if not, whether he has a severe impairment; (3) if so, whether his
impairment meets or equals the criteria listed in Appendix 1; (4)
if
not,
whether
the
claimant's
impairment
performing his past relevant work;
'IIlt.A012
(Rev. 8/82)
- 4
and
(5)
prevents
if so,
him
from
whether the
claimant can perform any other work that exists in the national
economy,
in light of
his age,
residual
functional
capacity.l
416.920(a) (4).
education,
20
work experience and
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 challenges the ALJ's findings at step
5 of the sequential evaluation process by arguing that the ALJ did
not properly consider and weigh the opinion of Elizabeth Kline,
who was plaintiff's treating nurse practitioner.
For reasons
explained below, this argument is without merit.
Ms.
Kline completed a
form report on which she assessed
plaintiff's functional ability to perform various mental workrelated activities.
Ms.
Kline rated plaintiff as having fair
ability 2 to follow work rules, relate to co-workers, deal with the
public,
use
independently,
judgment,
maintain
interact
personal
with
supervisors,
appearance,
behave
function
in
an
emotionally stable manner, and understand, remember and carry out
simple job instructions.
(R. 254-55).
Ms. Kline determined that
plaintiff had poor ability 3 to deal with work stress,
maintain
idual functional capacity is defined as that which an individual still
is able to do despite the limitations caused by his impairments.
20 C.F.R.
§§404.1545(a) (1), 416.945(a) (1) i Fargnoli, 247 F.3d at 40.
In assessing a
claimant's residual functional capacity, the ALJ is required to consider his
ability to meet the physical, mental, sensory and other requirements of work.
20 C.F.R. §§404.1545(a) (4), 416.945(a) (4).
2"Fair" is defined on the form as liability to function in this area
is limited but satisfactory."
(R. 254).
3
is
""'A072
(Rev. 8/82)
l1
Poor" is defined on the form as \lability to function in this area
limited but not precluded." (R. 254).
- 5
attention
situations,
and
concentration,
and understand,
GAF
score
at
predictably
in
social
remember and carry out complex or
detailed job instructions.
plaintiff's
relate
(R.
55,
254-55).
which
Ms.
Kline assessed
indicates
only
moderate
symptoms,4 yet she checked "no" in response to a question asking
if plaintiff could work a normal work day and work week.
(R.
256) .
In assessing opinion evidence,
the ALJ must consider all
relevant evidence from "acceptable medical sources,
/I
which include
licensed physicians, psychologists, optometrists and podiatrists,
as
well
as
§§4 04.1513 (a),
qualified
speech
416.913 (a) .
pathologists.
20
C.F.R.
The ALJ also may consider evidence
about a claimant's impairments and ability to work from other
sources who are not deemed an "acceptable medical source,
a nurse practitioner like Ms. Kline.
416.913 (d) (1) .
/I
such as
20 C.F.R. §§404.1513(d) (1),
Nevertheless, a nurse practitioner's opinion is
not entitled to controlling weight.
See Hartranft v. Apfel, 181
F.3d 358, 361 (3d Cir. 1999).
Although the ALJ was not obliged to afford controlling weight
to Ms. Kline's opinion, the ALJ considered her opinion as required
4 The GAF scale, designed by the American psychia~ic Association,
is used by clinicians to report an individual's overall level of mental
functioning.
The GAF scale considers psychological, social and
occupational functioning on a hypothetical continuum of mental health
to illness. The highest possible score is 100 and the lowest is 1. A
score between 51-60
indicates that one has moderate symptoms (e.g.,
flat affect and circumstantial speech, occasional panic attacks) or
moderate difficulty in social, occupational or school functioning (e. g. I
few friends, conflicts with peers or co-workers).
Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4 th Ed. 2000).
'
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?