Bridges v. Colvin

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE for 14 Report and Recommendation. It is therefore ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Doc. #14] is adopted, and the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 8/24/2014. (kls, )

**NOT FOR PRINTED PUBLICATION**
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
RONNIE ALTON BRIDGES,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CASE NO. 4:13-CV-151

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On June 16, 2014, the United States Magistrate Judge issued its report and
recommendation [Doc. #14], this matter having been referred to the United States Magistrate
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the decision of the
Administrative Law Judge be affirmed.
Plaintiff filed his objections to the report and recommendation on July 1, 2014 [Doc.
#16]. In reviewing whether the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) failed to provide good cause
for rejecting the opinions of the plaintiff’s treating physician, the Magistrate Judge concluded
that the ALJ relied on reliable medical evidence, and that substantial evidence supported the
decision of the ALJ in this case. The Magistrate Judge further concluded that the ALJ pointed to
specific medical records to demonstrate “good cause” for the weight given to the treating
physician’s opinion, cited to reports from other non-examining physicians, pointed out
inconsistencies between the treating physician’s assessment of the plaintiff’s limitations and his
own medical records, and relied on the plaintiff’s described daily activities to contradict the

1

treating physician’s findings. The Magistrate Judge also concluded that the ALJ properly
evaluated Plaintiff’s credibility.
Plaintiff objects to the findings of the Magistrate Judge, arguing that the Magistrate Judge
incorrectly adopted the conclusions reached by the ALJ regarding the weight given to the
opinion of Plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Raul Santos (“Dr. Santos”). Specifically, Plaintiff
complains that the Magistrate Judge erred when it noted that the ALJ correctly rejected the
limitations described by Dr. Santos because they addressed an issue of disability reserved to the
Commissioner. Plaintiff contends that this issue is a “red herring” because all medical opinions
regarding diagnoses, symptoms, prognosis, and limitations are on issues that are ultimately
reserved for the Commissioner. Further, Plaintiff asserts that the Magistrate Judge improperly
accepted the ALJ’s finding that Dr. Santos’ opinion was inconsistent with the treatment records.
Plaintiff contends that his primary disability is a cardiac disability, which has nothing to do with
the findings in the Magistrate Judge’s opinion regarding musculoskeletal problems. Finally,
Plaintiff asserts that the Magistrate Judge improperly considered the statements of Plaintiff
regarding his self-reported daily activities and limitations. Plaintiff argues that the ALJ did not
cite any of these facts as inconsistent with Dr. Santos’ opinion, and the reasoning cannot be
adopted by the court.
As the Magistrate Judge noted, in an appeal under § 405(g), the court must review the
Commissioner's decision to determine whether there is substantial evidence in the record to
support the Commissioner's factual findings and whether the Commissioner applied the proper
legal standards in evaluating the evidence. Greenspan v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 232, 236 (5th Cir.
1994), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court cannot reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for
that of the Commissioner, Bowling v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 431, 434 (5th Cir. 1995), and conflicts in

2

the evidence are resolved by the Commissioner. Carry v. Heckler, 750 F.2d 479, 484 (5th Cir.
1985). The inquiry of the court is limited to whether there is substantial evidence to support the
factual findings of the ALJ, which in this case was whether the ALJ had “good cause” to give
little or no significant weight to the opinions of the treating physician. In finding that the ALJ
had “good cause” to give no significant weight to the opinions of the treating physician in this
case, the Magistrate Judge noted that the medical opinion of Dr. Santos amounted to a
conclusion that Plaintiff was disabled and could not work, which is a medical opinion that is
reserved to the Commissioner. See Ashford v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 6:11CV155, 2013
WL 821858, at *8 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 4, 2013); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1), 416.927(d)(1); Giles
v. Astrue, 433 F. App’x 241, 247 (5th Cir. 2011); Frank v. Barnhart, 326 F.3d 618, 620 (5th Cir.
2003) (a doctor's conclusion that a social security disability applicant is disabled or unable to
work is not a medical opinion entitled to deference, but rather a legal conclusion reserved to the
Commissioner.); Tamez v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 334, 336 n.1 (5th Cir. 1989). The Magistrate Judge
further observed that the record was complete and clear, but the evidence contained in the record
did not support Dr. Santos’ disability opinion, and noted that the ALJ found Dr. Santos’ opinion
conclusory and inconsistent with the medical record. The Magistrate Judge also noted that
evidence in the record indicated that Plaintiff’s examinations from 2009-2011 revealed that
Plaintiff had normal cardiac examinations, was doing well, and exercised regularly. The
evidence of the Commissioner’s medical expert who examined the medical record also indicated
that Plaintiff’s impairments could not reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms to the
degree alleged by Plaintiff and Dr. Santos. In addition, the Magistrate Judge noted that
Plaintiff’s records indicated that he could walk one-eighth of a mile, stand twenty minutes, sit for
an hour, climb a flight of stairs, and lift twenty-five pounds overhead. This evidence constitutes

3

substantial evidence supporting the decision of the ALJ. Plaintiff’s objections seem to primarily
go to the weight given the evidence by the ALJ, and the ALJ’s interpretation of the relevant
medical evidence. In short, Plaintiff disagrees with the conclusions reached by the ALJ.
However, conflicts in the record and the weight given to the evidence are both issues for the ALJ
to resolve, not for this court. Plaintiff’s objection is overruled.
Plaintiff also objects to the finding of the Magistrate Judge that the ALJ properly
evaluated Plaintiff’s credibility. Plaintiff contends that although he is able to exercise, perform
chores around the house, help with grocery shopping, and is able to lift, walk, stand, and sit, does
not preclude a finding of disability. Plaintiff notes that he need not be bedridden or an invalid to
be found disabled.
The Magistrate Judge found that an ALJ has discretion to judge a claimant’s credibility
and must evaluate subjective complaints in light of the objective medical evidence on record.
Foster v. Astrue, 277 F. App'x 462, 465 (5th Cir. 2008); Johnson v. Heckler, 767 F.2d 180, 182
(5th Cir. 1985). Here, the ALJ used a two-step process to make his credibility determination.
First, he examined the medical record and relevant testimony to determine if Plaintiff’s
medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged
symptoms; and second, the ALJ used a seven-factor test to assess Plaintiff’s credibility (TR 24).
Those factors included (1) the plaintiff’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency,
and intensity of the plaintiff’s pain or other symptoms; (3) factors that precipitate and aggravate
the symptoms; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness and side effects of any medication the plaintiff
takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; (5) treatment, other than medication, the
plaintiff receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; (6) any measures other
than treatment the claimant uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms (lying flat on

4

back, standing 15-20 minutes every hour, sleeping on a board); and (7) any other factors
concerning the plaintiff’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms.
See SSR 96-7p. After considering these factors, the Magistrate Judge found that there was
substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s symptoms and limitations
are outside the range of reasonable attribution according to the medical opinions in the record,
and that there was substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s assessment of Plaintiff’s credibility.
Again, although Plaintiff disagrees with the credibility assessment of the ALJ, there is no reason
to suspect that the assessment was in error, as substantial evidence supports this conclusion.
Plaintiff’s objection is overruled.
The court has conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings
and applicable law. After careful consideration, the court concludes the plaintiff’s objections are
overruled.
It is therefore ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge [Doc. #14] is adopted, and the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.

So ordered and signed on

Aug 24, 2014

5