Case v. Colvin
Filing
24
MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order-Having determined that the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence and free from harmful legal error, that decision is AFFIRMED. Judgment shall be entered inDefendant's favor in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. Signed by Judge Bruce S. Jenkins on 12/19/13. (jmr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
SHERRIE CASE,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration,
Case No. 2:13-CV-00399-BSJ
District Judge Bruce S. Jenkins
Defendant.
Plaintiff brought this action for judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner
of the Social Security Administration, which denied Plaintiff’s applications for Disability
Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). Having considered the
parties’ briefs, the administrative record, the arguments of counsel, and the relevant law, the
Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s decision.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff applied for DIB and SSI in May 2010. She alleges an onset date of disability of
November 14, 2008. The applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration. Plaintiff
requested a hearing, and the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued a decision on March 2,
2012. The ALJ found the Plaintiff had not been under a disability within the meaning of the
Social Security Act from November 14, 2008, through the date of decision. Plaintiff sought
judicial review by filing suit against the Commissioner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and
1383(c)(3).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff presents three main arguments for reversing the ALJ’s findings: she contends (1)
the ALJ did not properly analyze or weigh medical opinions and sources; (2) the ALJ’s residual
functional capacity (“RFC”) and corresponding hypothetical to the vocational expert did not
contain all the limitations supported by substantial evidence; and (3) the ALJ improperly found
Plaintiff not compliant with prescribed treatment.
1. Analysis and Weighing of Medical Evidence
The ALJ erred in omitting a discussion of the medical evidence provided by Dr. Marylin
Shell, Ph.D. and Lindsay Bowton, LCSW. The ALJ’s decision did not clearly indicate the
weight given to either opinion. However, after reviewing the omitted medical material, the
Court finds this error to be harmless and not warranting remand or reversal.
Dr. Shell examined Plaintiff once more than three years before her alleged onset of
disability. Dr. Shell did not find Plaintiff had functional limitations inconsistent with the ALJ’s
decision. See Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156, 1163 (10th Cir. 2012) (ALJ’s failure to
expressly weigh a medical opinion was harmless error, as the opinion was generally consistent
with the ALJ’s residual functional capacity findings). Nor did Dr. Shell’s opinions address how
Plaintiff’s conditions would impact her ability to perform works tasks or function in a work
environment. See id. at 1164, (“None of these observations, however, offers an assessment of
the effect of Ms. Keyes-Zachary’s mental limitations on her ability to work . . . The ALJ’s failure
to assign a specific weight to Mr. Blasdel’s observations therefore did not represent harmful
error.”).
2
The medical observations of Lindsay Bowton are not significantly probative. Ms.
Bowton’s opinion is limited to a “To Whom It May Concern” letter. The letter indicates that the
first date of treatment with Plaintiff was April 27, 2011, and the last day of treatment was
September 23, 2011. But it gives no indication as to how often or for how long Ms. Bowton saw
Plaintiff between those dates. Neither does Ms. Bowton offer clinical support or evidence to
support her conclusions. Absent significant probative value, Plaintiff was not prejudiced by the
ALJ’s failure to discuss Ms. Bowton’s medical opinion. See Jimison ex rel. Sims v. Colvin, 513
F. App'x 789, 794 (10th Cir. 2013).
With regards to the other medical opinions of record, including the opinion of Dr.
Christina Gallup, M.D. and her physician assistant, Joel J. Hunt PA-C, the Court finds the ALJ
sufficiently analyzed and weighed such medical evidence.
Therefore, Plaintiff has not presented grounds based on the medical evidence described
or omitted by the ALJ that would justify altering the agency’s decision.
2. The RFC and Vocational Expert Hypothetical
Given the Court’s determination regarding the ALJ’s analysis and weighing of the
medical evidence, the Court additionally finds the ALJ did not commit reversible error in his
RFC finding and corresponding vocational expert hypothetical.
3. Plaintiff Compliance with Prescribed Treatment
The ALJ analyzed the Plaintiff’s compliance with prescribed treatment in the context of
analyzing Plaintiff’s credibility. The ALJ’s analysis included Plaintiff’s failure to wear gas
permeable contacts and to quit smoking. The ALJ determined Plaintiff’s statements concerning
the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her alleged symptoms were not entitled to full
3
credibility. As the ALJ's did not analyze Plaintiffs compliance as a means for finding an
otherwise disabled Plaintiff not disabled, the ALJ did not need to engage in the analysis set forth
in SSR 82-59. As such, the Court does not find the AU committed reversible error.
CONCLUSION
Having determined that the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence and
free from harmful legal error, that decision is AFFIRMED. Judgment shall be entered in
Defendant's favor in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 .
.--/-"
DATED this }'l day of December, 2013.
4
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?