Jones v. Astrue

Filing 13

OPINION AND ORDER denying 8 Motion to Reverse Decision of the Commissioner; granting 9 Motion to Affirm the Decision of the Commissioner; adopting 10 Report and Recommendations. So Ordered by Judge William E. Smith on 6/2/10. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND ___________________________________ GREGORY JONES, ) ) ) Plainitff, ) ) vs. ) ) MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, ) Social Security Administration, ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________)

C.A. No. 09-206 S

OPINION AND ORDER WILLIAM E. SMITH, United States District Judge. Plaintiff brought this action to reverse a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security (the "Commissioner") denying his request for disability benefits. The Commissioner opposes

Plaintiff's request, and has moved for an order affirming the Commissioner's decision. Magistrate Judge Almond issued a

Report and Recommendation recommending that the Commissioner's motion be granted. 206 S, Doc. No. (See Report and Recommendation, C.A. No. 0910, to Feb. the 19, 2010 the (hereinafter Court "R&R").) the

Plaintiff objection.

objects

R&R,

but

overrules

For the reasons set forth below, and those stated in

the R&R, the Court accepts the R&R in full and affirms the Commissioner's decision.

In considering an objection to an R&R, the Court conducts "a de novo determination of those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made" and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the

magistrate judge."

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2009); see Fed. R.

Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Jasty v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc., 528 F.3d 28, 33 (1st Cir. 2008). Plaintiff objects that the R&R mistakenly approved of the reasons denying given by the Administrative claim on the Law Judge ("ALJ") for

Plaintiff's

Commissioner's

behalf.

Specifically, Plaintiff contends Judge Almond should have found the ALJ erred by giving "significant probative weight" to the opinion of a consultative physician, Dr. Amir Missaghian,

regarding Plaintiff's functional capabilities. 404.1520(e) claimant's disability). (explaining "residual Dr. that the

See 20 C.F.R. § considers in a

Commissioner capacity"

functional

assessing capable of

Missaghian

considered

Plaintiff

some standing, walking, and lifting activities. ALJ to find Plaintiff could perform light

This led the work, and was

therefore not disabled.

(See Admin. R., C.A. No. 09-206 S, at The flaw with Dr.

12-14, May 29, 2009, (hereinafter "Tr.").)

Missaghian's evaluation, Plaintiff argues, was that he offered it in January 2007, almost two years before the ALJ issued his decision. Consequently, Dr. Missaghian's opinion was based on
2

incomplete

information,

Plaintiff

asserts,

because

he

lacked The ALJ at to

relevant medical records submitted in 2007 and 2008. should have either hearing retained or a medical a expert to

testify expert

Plaintiff's

contacted

state

agency

perform an updated review of Plaintiff's medical file. There are two problems with this argument. First, unlike

in the case Plaintiff relies on, Alcantara v. Astrue, Plaintiff has not demonstrated the record was "significantly incomplete" at the time of Dr. Missaghian's review because there was a later "material change." 334, 2007 WL Alcantara v. Astrue, 257 Fed. Appx. 333, at *1 (1st Cir. 2007) (per curiam)

4328148,

(unpublished decision) (observing that "the record repeatedly indicated that the [claimant] deteriorated"). Rather, all

Plaintiff does is quote findings dated June 2007, and then pose the question, "[w]ho but someone with medical expertise can say that this is not a material change?" (Pl.'s Obj. to R&R at 2.)

This turns the applicable burden in a Social Security appeal upside-down. The Court must "defer to the Commissioner's

findings of fact," unless the plaintiff can demonstrate they are not "supported by substantial evidence." Ward v. Comm'r of Plaintiff

Social Security, 211 F.3d 652, 655 (1st Cir. 2000).

would have the Court assume the ALJ got it wrong absent an expert medical opinion to the contrary.

3

Under the correct standard of review, the ALJ's decision must be affirmed. The ALJ did consider the medical files from

2007 cited by Plaintiff, which related to a neck impairment, and explained why they did not confirm the severity of Plaintiff's alleged symptoms. The ALJ commented that records through

September 2007, "while reflecting complaints of neck and left upper extremity pain and numbness, did not document ongoing

spasm or neurological deficits."

(Tr. at 10.)

He also observed

that the Plaintiff received "strictly conservative[]" treatment for his neck condition through 2008. (Id.) See Johnson v.

Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 656-57 (4th Cir. 2005) (finding that a recommendation of "conservative treatment" supported a medical opinion that the claimant could perform light work). A

"reasonable mind, reviewing the evidence in the record as a whole, could accept" these facts as "adequate to support" the ALJ's conclusion that later evidence supported Dr. Missaghian's findings. Rodriguez v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 647 F.2d

218, 222 (1st Cir. 1981). Second, Judge Almond is correct that, carried to its

logical result, Plaintiffs' argument means an ALJ can never make a disability decision R&R at any without 20.) files commissioning Otherwise, added the a new ALJ medical would be

opinion. unequipped

(See to

assess

after

the

most

recent

medical opinion in the record.
4

This proposition defies the

principle that there is no need for "some super-evaluator, a single physician who gives the factfinder an overview of the entire case." Evangelista v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs.,

826 F.2d 136, 144 (1st Cir. 1987). Indeed, accepting Plaintiff's stance on this point would efface the ALJ's authority to interpret the evidence. says the of ALJ was not medically that qualified post-date to Plaintiff the

determine

meaning

treatment

records

Dr.

Missaghian's

evaluation.

It is true that an ALJ cannot "substitute his own Nguyen v. Chater,

views for uncontroverted medical opinion." 172 F.3d 31, 35 (1st Cir. 1999). here.

But that is not what happened

The ALJ did not reject an expert's interpretation of

objective medical findings in favor of his own view of what they might mean. Cf. Walker v. Barnhart, No. Civ.A. 04-11752-DPW,

2005 WL 2323169, at *18 (D. Mass. Aug. 23, 2005) ("By reaching a conclusion about Walker's expected absences that contradicted the only medical evidence directly on point, the ALJ appears to have `substitute[d] his own views for uncontroverted medical

opinion,' an analytical operation he is `not at liberty' to undertake.") (quoting Nguyen, 172 F.3d at 35). Rather, the ALJ

determined that Dr. Missaghian's opinion from 2007 was supported by medical facts documented both before and after that time. In

doing so, the ALJ fulfilled his duty to "piece together the relevant medical facts." Evangelista, 826 F.2d at 144.
5

For these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion and GRANTS the Commissioner's motion. is therefore affirmed. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Commissioner's judgment

/s/ William E. Smith
William E. Smith United States District Judge Date: June 2, 2010

6