ROWLES v. COLVIN
Filing
12
OPINION and ORDER denying 8 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 10 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Donetta W. Ambrose on 2/7/17. (slh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALAN LEE ROWLES,
Plaintiff,
-vsNANCY A. BERRYHILL,1
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 16-74
AMBROSE, Senior District Judge
OPINION
Pending before the Court are Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 8 and
10). Both parties have filed Briefs in Support of their Motions. (ECF Nos. 9 and 11). 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. 8) and granting Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 10).
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brought this action for review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security (ACommissioner@) denying his application for disability insurance benefits (“BID”)
pursuant to the Social Security Act (AAct@). Plaintiff filed his application alleging he had been
disabled since May 15, 1997. (ECF No. 6-5, p. 7). Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), Charles
Pankow, held a hearing on March 10, 2014. (ECF No. 6-2, pp. 40-60). On September 17,
2014, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled under the Act. (ECF No. 6-2, pp. 23-35).
After exhausting all administrative remedies, Plaintiff filed the instant action with this court.
The parties have filed Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 6 and 8). The issues
are now ripe for review.
1 Nancy A. Berryhill became acting Commissioner of Social Security on January 23, 2017, replacing
Carolyn W. Colvin.
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,
whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) if the claimant has a severe impairment,
2
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.
Weighing of medical opinions
Plaintiff’s first argument is that the ALJ erred by failing to adequately explain why he
rejected the opinion of consulting physician, Dennis P. Clark, D. Ed. (ECF No. 9, pp. 5-7). If
credited, Plaintiff argues, then Plaintiff would be disabled. Id. Therefore, Plaintiff submits that
reversal is warranted. 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
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,
3
such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations.” Id. § 404.1527(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, the ALJ gave Dr. Clark’s opinion little weight. (ECF No. 6-2, pp. 29-31).
Specifically, the ALJ afforded Dr. Clark’s opinion little weight because it was “inconsistent with his
own findings, the other clinical findings of record, and with other substantial evidence. His
limitations are unsupported by contemporaneous evaluations, and are inconsistent with totality of
the medical evidence of record.
Significantly, the record shows no formal mental health
treatment of record other than a prescription from a physician. Dr. Clark confirmed the claimant
has never received any type of mental health treatment (Exhibit 3F). Also, the record does not
reflect suicidal ideation as reported by Dr. Clark.” (ECF No. 6-2, p. 31). These are valid and
4
acceptable reasons for discounting opinion evidence. See, 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527; 416.927
(Evaluating Opinion Evidence). 2
Based on the same I am able to conduct a proper and
meaningful review. I find the reasons given by the ALJ in weighing Dr. Clark’s opinion were
sufficiently explained and supported by substantial evidence of record.
(ECF No. 6-2, pp.
29-33). Therefore, I find the ALJ did not err in this regard. Consequently, reversal is not
warranted on this basis.
Similarly, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by failing to adequately explain why he
rejected the opinion of consulting physician, Carlos A. Wiegering, M.D. (ECF No. 9, pp. 7-9).
Plaintiff suggests that the ALJ “ignored” Dr. Wiegering’s opinion that Plaintiff is limited to lifting no
more than 20 pounds, which Plaintiff submits is consistent the opinion of Dr. Caramanna, M.D.,
the state agency medical consultant. Id. at p.
Therefore, Plaintiff submits that reversal is
warranted. Again, after a careful review of the evidence, I disagree.
Contrary to Plaintiff’s position, the ALJ did not ignore Dr. Wiegering’s opinion regarding
Plaintiff’s weight restrictions. Rather, the ALJ considered the same and rejected it because
“there is no evidence that the claimant is unable to lift up to 50 pounds occasionally during the day
which is more consistent with the ability to perform medium, as compared to light, exertional
activity….[Thus,] clinical and diagnostic studies regarding light exertion…are inconsistent with the
totality of the evidence.” (ECF No. 6-2, p. 33). These are valid and acceptable reasons for
discounting opinion evidence. See, 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527; 416.927 (Evaluating Opinion
Evidence).
Plaintiff points to Dr. Caramanna’s opinion as evidence that Plaintiff was limited to lifting
only 20 pounds occasionally. (ECF No. 9, p. 8). The ALJ considered the same, however, and
2
Plaintiff seems to support his argument by suggesting that Dr. Clark’s opinion is consistent with other
medical evidence. To be clear, the standard is not whether there is evidence to establish Plaintiff’s
position but, rather, is whether there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding. Allen v. Bowen,
881 F.2d 37, 39 (3d Cir. 1989). Thus, this support for Plaintiff’s argument is misplaced.
5
gave it only some weight. (ECF No. 6-2, p. 33). Plaintiff does not assert that the ALJ erred in
weighing Dr. Caramanna’s opinion, nor does Plaintiff point to any other evidence of record
indicating that he was limited in lifting. (ECF No. 9, pp. 8-9). Therefore, I find Plaintiff’s reliance
on Dr. Caramanna’s opinion to be unpersuasive.
Based on the above, I find that the ALJ did not err in failing to adequately explain why he
rejected the opinion of consulting physician, Carlos A. Wiegering, M.D. Consequently, reversal
is not warranted on this basis.
An appropriate order shall follow.
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALAN LEE ROWLES,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
-vsNANCY A. BERRYHILL,3
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 16-74
AMBROSE, Senior District Judge
ORDER OF COURT
THEREFORE, this 7th day of February, 2017, it is ordered that Plaintiff=s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket No. 8) is denied and Defendant=s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Docket No. 10) is granted.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Donetta W. Ambrose
Donetta W. Ambrose
United States Senior District Judge
3 Nancy A. Berryhill became acting Commissioner of Social Security on January 23, 2017, replacing
Carolyn W. Colvin.
7
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?