Hicks v Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING 19 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Ordering that social security action is AFFIRMED. Signed by Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III on 9/26/2016. (sm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
BRANDYE LYNN HICKS
VS.
COMMISIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL NO. 5:14cv145-RWS-CMC

MEMORANDUM ORDER
The above-entitled and numbered civil action was heretofore referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Caroline M. Craven pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. The Report of the Magistrate
Judge, which contains her proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of such
action, has been presented for consideration.

Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and

Recommendation. The Court conducted a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s findings and
conclusions.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In the August 18, 2016 Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge noted that in her
first issue on appeal, Plaintiff asserts the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) credibility finding is
erroneous. In her second and third issues, Plaintiff asserts the ALJ’s incorrect credibility finding
caused an incorrect residual functional capacity finding, and the erroneous residual functional
capacity finding renders erroneous the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff can perform jobs existing in the
national economy. (Report and Recommendation at 19–20). Thus, according to the Magistrate
Judge, the overarching issues before the Court are whether substantial evidence of record supports
the ALJ’s decision regarding Plaintiff’s credibility and whether the ALJ applied the correct legal
standards in reaching that decision.

The Magistrate Judge found the ALJ articulated legitimate reasons supported by
substantial evidence for discrediting Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. (Id. at 25–26). Noting
Plaintiff’s second and third issues rested entirely on the success of her argument that the ALJ
improperly assessed her credibility, the Magistrate Judge found those issues without merit as
well.
OBJECTIONS
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that Plaintiff’s above-entitled
and numbered social security cause of action be affirmed. Plaintiff asserts as follows:
Objection: The Magistrate Judge erred in finding that the ALJ
correctly applied the applicable legal standards in assessing Ms.
Hicks’s credibility (Report and Recommendation at 25–26), residual functional
capacity (“RFC”), and ability to perform work in the national economy (Id.
at 26), and in finding that substantial evidence supports those assessments
(Id. at 25–26).
(Dkt. No. 20 at 1). In support of this global objection, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ did not apply
the correct “treating physician evidence standards” and consequently gave too little weight to the
Community Healthcore records. (Dkt. No. 20 at 2–4). Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ
discounted Community Healthcore records spanning a time period of at least four years and ten
months “because of a single document, from a single day, from one doctor,” presumably
referencing the form submitted by Dr. Montoya. (Id. at 3; see Tr. 28). Plaintiff finally argues
that if the Community Healthcore evidence were properly considered, substantial evidence
would not support the Commissioner’s decision. (Dkt. No. 20 at 4).
DE NOVO REVIEW
The ALJ applied the correct standards to the Community Healthcore records and
considered them extensively in his opinion. The ALJ also considered other evidence of record in

Page 2 of 5

arriving at the ultimate decision denying Ms. Hicks’s disabled status. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
objections are overruled, and the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.
First, the ALJ was not required to consider the six factors of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)
with respect to Dr. Montoya’s form. An “ALJ must consider the six factors in subsection (d)
[i.e. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)] only with respect to the medical opinions of treating physicians”
and only when the ALJ reaches conclusions that conflict with the doctor’s evaluation. Frank v.
Barnhart, 326 F.3d 618, 620–21 (5th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original). Conversely, opinions by
treating doctors as to determinations that are reserved to the Commissioner “have no special
significance.” Id. at 620. Dr. Montoya’s form contains limited medical analysis: “[d]ue to
episodic hypomanic excitement, pressuredness [sic], and impulsivity, performance varies.” (Tr.
at 681–83). This analysis, repeated on each page, is the only support Dr. Montoya gives for his
determinations—communicated only by check-marks—as to Ms. Hicks’s ability to follow work
rules, relate to co-works, etc.

Because these determinations are those reserved to the

Commissioner and do not reflect well-reasoned medical opinion, the ALJ was not entitled to
accord them special weight. Moreover, the ALJ’s opinion does not conflict with Dr. Montoya
medical findings.

To the contrary, it acknowledges that Ms. Hicks may be prone to

episodic hypomanic excitement, pressuredness and impulsivity. (See Tr. at 25).
Second, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the ALJ considered the Community Healthcore
records and specifically Plaintiff’s non-compliance with medical treatment contained in those
records. As noted by the Magistrate Judge, on February 28, 2011, Plaintiff failed to appear for
her appointment at Community Healthcore.

(Report and Recommendation at 4).

The

appointment was rescheduled for March 7, but Plaintiff cancelled this appointment. Plaintiff
did not show for the rescheduled appointment on March 15 and later cancelled her April 11,

Page 3 of 5

2011 appointment.

( Id.)

On May 9, 2011, a Brief Crisis Intervention was completed by

Community Healthcore after Plaintiff made suicidal threats in the presence of arresting
officials. (Id. at 5). Plaintiff advised she was not taking her medications, stating they did not
work. She was noted to be self-medicating. Plaintiff tested positive for methamphetamine, and
she acknowledged last using three days prior.

(Id.)

Plaintiff returned to Community Healthcore on July 13, 2011 and it was noted:
She has totally self adjusted all of her medications since I saw her last. She is
famous for this. She has stopped Lithium and Seroquel. She restarted some
Wellbutrin she had at the house. She says she cannot go without an
antidepressant. She says she feels good right now. She sleeps fine. No manic
behavior.
(Id. at 6). Plaintiff was again non-compliant with medication in July of 2011.

(Id.)

As noted by the Magistrate Judge, non-compliance with prescribed treatment is a proper
factor for the ALJ to consider in assessing a claimant’s credibility. (Id. at 23 (citing Villa v.
Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019, 1024 (5th Cir.1990))). Here, the ALJ stated “[Plaintiff’s] credibility
is seriously undermined by her non-compliance with medical treatment.” (Tr. 25). This is only
one reason given by the ALJ in support of his credibility finding. The ALJ also provided the
following legitimate reasons: (1) insufficiency of the evidence (including treating physician Dr.
Montoya’s January 14, 2013 “conclusory form”) to support Plaintiff’s alleged disabling physical
and mental limitations; (2) his close observation of Plaintiff’s “demeanor and behavior, responses
and manner of responses to questions, facial expressions and body dynamics, reactions in and to
the hearing proceedings, and entrance and exit”; and (3) her mostly normal mental abilities support
the residual functional capacity restriction “that she has the ability to learn, understand,
remember, and carry out detailed instructions,” which is consistent not only “with her goaldirected thought process” and “average intelligence that she exhibited throughout her

Page 4 of 5

examinations,” but also with her abilities to “perform a wide range of mentally demanding
activities (for example, “to sit through television shows and movies” and a 90-minute hearing,
use a cell phone, “understand hygiene rules well enough to tend to her personal hygiene needs,”
complete light household chores, “remember recipes well enough to prepare meals,” use a
computer and online networking websites, care for her teenage son without any State Agency
involvement, and “understand and remember safety rules well enough to drive a car”). (Report
and Recommendation at 21–22).
After reviewing the transcript, the briefs of the parties, the Report and Recommendation,
and the objections, the Court finds Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. The Court agrees
with the Magistrate Judge that the ALJ articulated legitimate reasons supported by substantial
evidence for discrediting Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, and the ALJ applied correct legal

. standards in weighing the evidence. The Court also finds substantial evidence supports the
ALJ’s residual functional capacity finding as well as the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff is capable
of performing jobs existing in the national economy.
The Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are
correct. Therefore, the Court hereby adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the above-entitled Social Security action is AFFIRMED.
SIGNED this 26th day of September, 2016.

____________________________________
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 5 of 5