Dietz v. Colvin

Filing 37

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells on 9/1/2017. (las)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
ALICE M. DIETZ,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:16-cv-936 BCW

v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,

Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells

Defendant.

This matter came before the undersigned for oral argument on September 1, 2017. Karl
Osterhout represented Plaintiff and Defendant was represented by Kathryn Bostwick. After
hearing oral argument and having considered the parties’ memoranda, the administrative record
and relevant case law, the court finds the Administrative Law Judge’s Residual Functional
Capacity (RFC) determination was supported by substantial evidence and the correct legal
standards were applied. The court adopts the reasoning set forth by Defendant in its answer
brief.
Specifically, the court finds the ALJ’s decision is supported by the opinion of Dr. McGill
and Plaintiff’s own statements in the record. Dr. McGill opined that Plaintiff “was far more
functional when she worked and was not sitting at home with nothing to do.” 1 Plaintiff stated
that she was “tired of doing phone work and I don’t want to get a job in that again. Customer
service are the only jobs that are there.” 2 In addition, the court finds that Dr. McGill’s opinion
does not support the level of severe social limitations asserted by Plaintiff at oral argument. Dr.
McGill opined that although she had some social issues, such as being critical of co-workers and
1

Tr. 355.

2

Tr. 352.

problems with authority, these did not prohibit her from being able to do simple work tasks.
Finally, there is a history of depression in the record that could conceivably impact Plaintiff’s
social functioning. 3 But, the record is void of evidence indicating that Plaintiff’s mental ailments
were disabling as set forth by the regulations. 4
Accordingly, the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and the correct
legal standards were applied. 5 The decision of the Commissioner is therefore affirmed and the
Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 1 September 2017.

Brooke C. Wells
United States Magistrate Judge

3

Tr. 383, 397, 484, 552.

4

See Chapo v. Astrue, 682 F.3d 1285, 1288 (10th Cir. 2012) (there is no requirement in the regulations for a direct
correspondence between an RFC finding and a specific medical opinion on the functional capacity in question.”).

5

See Lax v. Astrue, 489 F.3d 1080, 1084 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”).

2