Mathias v. Colvin

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 3/13/2015. (Bordwine, Robin)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
BIG STONE GAP DIVISION
SONDRA G. MATHIAS,
Plaintiff
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 2:13cv00059
MEMORANDUM OPINION

By: PAMELA MEADE SARGENT
United States Magistrate Judge

I. Background and Standard of Review
Plaintiff, Sondra G. Mathias, (“Mathias”), filed this action challenging the
final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, (“Commissioner”), denying
her claims for disability insurance benefits, (“DIB”), and supplemental security
income, (“SSI”), under the Social Security Act, as amended, (“Act”), 42 U.S.C.A.
§§ 423 and 1381 et seq. (West 2011 & West 2012). Jurisdiction of this court is
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). This case is before the
undersigned magistrate judge upon transfer by consent of the parties pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).

The court’s review in this case is limited to determining if the factual
findings of the Commissioner are supported by substantial evidence and were
reached through application of the correct legal standards. See Coffman v. Bowen,
829 F.2d 514, 517 (4th Cir. 1987). Substantial evidence has been defined as
“evidence which a reasoning mind would accept as sufficient to support a
particular conclusion. It consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may
be somewhat less than a preponderance.” Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640, 642
-1-

(4th Cir. 1966). “‘If there is evidence to justify a refusal to direct a verdict were the
case before a jury, then there is “substantial evidence.”’” Hays v. Sullivan, 907
F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990) (quoting Laws, 368 F.2d at 642).

The record shows that Mathias protectively filed her applications for SSI and
DIB on November 20, 2009, alleging disability as of November 16, 2009, due to
degenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis, depression, thyroid problems and inability
to concentrate. (Record, (“R.”), at 202-07, 219, 223, 266.) The claims were denied
initially and upon reconsideration. (R. at 109-11, 118, 122-24, 126-31, 133-35.)
Mathias then requested a hearing before an administrative law judge, (“ALJ”). (R.
at 136-37.) A video hearing was held on August 14, 2012, at which Mathias was
represented by counsel. (R. at 23-52.)

By decision dated August 29, 2012, the ALJ denied Mathias’s claims. (R. at
11-22.) The ALJ found that Mathias met the disability insured status requirements
of the Act for DIB purposes through December 31, 2010. (R. at 13.) The ALJ
found that Mathias had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since November
16, 2009, the alleged onset date. (R. at 13.) The ALJ found that the medical
evidence established that Mathias had severe impairments, namely degenerative
disc disease, degenerative joint disease, major depressive disorder, generalized
anxiety disorder, borderline intellectual functioning and pain disorder, but the ALJ
found that Mathias did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that
met or medically equaled one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404,
Subpart P, Appendix 1. (R. at 13-14.) The ALJ found that Mathias had the residual

-2-

functional capacity to perform simple, unskilled light work1 that required no more
than occasional interaction with the public or co-workers.2 (R. at 15.) The ALJ
found that Mathias was able to perform her past relevant work as a flagger. (R. at
20.) Based on Mathias’s age, education, work history and residual functional
capacity and the testimony of a vocational expert, the ALJ found that a significant
number of jobs existed in the national economy that Mathias could perform,
including jobs as a photocopy machine operator, a marker and a stock checker. (R.
at 20-21.) Thus, the ALJ concluded that Mathias was not under a disability as
defined by the Act and was not eligible for DIB or SSI benefits. (R. at 21.) See 20
C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), (g), 416.920(f), (g) (2014).

After the ALJ issued his decision, Mathias pursued her administrative
appeals, but the Appeals Council denied her request for review. (R. at 1-5.)
Mathias then filed this action seeking review of the ALJ’s unfavorable decision,
which now stands as the Commissioner’s final decision. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.981,
416.1481 (2014). This case is before this court on Mathias’s motion for summary
judgment filed July 1, 2014, and the Commissioner’s motion for summary
judgment filed August 4, 2014.

1

Light work involves lifting items weighing up to 20 pounds at a time with frequent
lifting or carrying of items weighing up to 10 pounds. If someone can perform light work, she
also can perform sedentary work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(b), 416.967(b) (2014).
2

The ALJ placed a number of exertional limitations on Mathias’s work-related abilities.
(R. at 15.) However, because Mathias does not challenge the ALJ’s findings with regard to her
physical impairments, the undersigned will focus on the facts relevant to Mathias’s alleged
mental impairments.
-3-

II. Facts

Mathias was born in 1963, (R. at 202, 219), which, at the time of the ALJ’s
decision, classified her as a “younger person” under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1563(c),
416.963(c). Mathias has an eleventh-grade education. (R. at 228.) She has past
work experience as a fence builder, a construction worker, a flagger and a fast food
cook. (R. at 44-45.) Mathias testified at her hearing that she did not like being
around people. (R. at 28.) She stated that she did not go around people, including
her children and grandchildren. (R. at 28.) Mathias stated that she did not
experience any side effects from her medication and that the medication helped
“some” with her symptoms. (R. at 29.) She stated that she cried “all the time” and
had no desire to do anything. (R. at 33.) Mathias stated that she had one friend that
she talked to on the phone. (R. at 33.)

Vocational expert, James Williams, testified at Mathias’s hearing. (R. at 4941-50.) Williams identified Mathias’s past job as a flagger as unskilled light work;
her job as a fence builder and construction worker as unskilled very heavy3 work;
and her job as a fast food worker as skilled medium4 work. (R. at 44-45.) The ALJ
asked Williams to consider a hypothetical individual of Mathias’s age, education
and work experience, who could perform simple, routine, unskilled light work with
only occasional interaction with the public and co-workers. (R. at 45.) Williams
3

Very heavy work involves lifting objects weighing more than 100 pounds at a time with
frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing 50 pounds or more. If an individual can do very
heavy work, she also can do sedentary, light, medium and heavy work. See 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1567(e), 416.967(e) (2014).
4

Medium work involves lifting items weighing up to 50 pounds at a time with frequent
lifting or carrying of items weighing up to 25 pounds. If an individual can do medium work, she
also can do sedentary and light work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(c), 416.967(c) (2014).
-4-

testified that such an individual could perform Mathias’s past work as a flagger.
(R. at 45-46.) Williams also identified jobs that existed in significant numbers in
the national or regional economy that such an individual could perform, including
jobs as a photocopy machine operator, a price changer, a marker and a stock
checker. (R. at 46-47.) Williams stated that there would be no jobs available that
the hypothetical individual could perform should she be absent from work more
than two or three days a month and if she had no ability to demonstrate reliability.
(R. at 48-49.)

In rendering his decision, the ALJ reviewed records from Wise County
Public Schools; Dr. Hillery Lake, M.D., a state agency physician; Dr. Andrew
Bockner, M.D., a state agency physician; Stone Mountain Health Services; B.
Wayne Lanthorn, Ph.D., a licensed clinical psychologist; Robert S. Spangler,
Ed.D., a licensed psychologist; and Crystal Burke, L.C.S.W., a licensed clinical
social worker.

On June 22, 2009, Mathias was seen at Stone Mountain Health Services,
(“Stone Mountain”), for complaints of a “tremendous” amount of stress at work
and frequent crying spells. (R. at 331-32.) She reported that she had to quit her job
due to the stress. (R. at 332.) Mathias stated that all she wanted to do was stay at
home due to increased anxiety and depression. (R. at 332.) She was told to contact
Wise County Mental Health. (R. at 332.) On August 21, 2009, Mathias reported
that she was depressed “at times.” (R. at 330.) She had not yet sought behavioral
health services. (R. at 330.) On October 21, 2009, Mathias admitted that she was
having problems with depression, stating that she had no motivation to go
anywhere or to do anything. (R. at 328.) She had not yet sought behavioral health
services. (R. at 328.) Mathias was prescribed Prozac. (R. at 327.) On November
-5-

20, 2009, Mathias reported that she felt like “a new person.” (R. at 325.) She stated
that she had been leaving her home without worry and was able to tolerate her
grandchildren. (R. at 325.)

From April 15, 2010, through November 10, 2010, Mathias began medical
visits that included psychological evaluations. (R. at 418-41.) During this time,
Mathias’s mood and affect were normal, as were her memory, judgment and
insight. (R. at 419, 422, 425, 429, 431, 434, 437, 440.) On November 10, 2010,
Mathias appeared sad and was crying. (R. at 419.) She reported that her brother
had died in a motor vehicle accident on November 1, 2010. (R. at 418.) Despite her
grief, Mathias’s orientation, memory, judgment and insight were normal. (R. at
419-20.) Xanax was added to Mathias’s medication regimen. (R. at 420.)

On December 2, 2010, Mathias underwent a behavioral health consultation.
(R. at 416.) Mathias’s mood was depressed, and her affect was congruent;
however, her memory and thought content were intact. (R. at 416.) She was
diagnosed with depressive disorder, not otherwise specified; anxiety disorder, not
otherwise specified; and bereavement. (R. at 416.) On December 10, 2010,
Mathias reported that she was concerned over her brother’s death and the care of
his son. (R. at 413.) Mathias’s mood and affect were normal, as were her memory,
judgment and insight. (R. at 414.)

On February 9, 2011, Mathias reported that her anxiety had improved with
Xanax, and her depression had improved slightly with an increased Prozac dosage.
(R. at 522.) Her orientation, memory, judgment and insight were reported as
normal. (R. at 523.) Again, on June 3, 2011, Mathias reported that her medications
were “working” for her. (R. at 516.)
-6-

On July 28, 2011, Mathias saw Crystal Burke, L.C.S.W., a licensed clinical
social worker, for Stone Mountain. (R. at 515.) Mathias reported that she had been
under a lot of stress at home over the prior two to three weeks. (R. at 515.) Her
house flooded earlier in the week, and she had lost several things and was
concerned that her home may be a total loss. (R. at 515.) Mathias’s daughter and
three grandchildren also had begun living with her before the flood because her
daughter had separated from her husband. (R. at 515.) Outside of her stressors, her
mood and affect were normal, as were her memory, judgment and insight. (R. at
512.) Burke diagnosed anxiety, chronic pain and low weight. (R. at 513.)

On August 11, 2011, Burke completed a mental assessment indicating that
Mathias had a limited, but satisfactory, ability to understand, remember and carry
out simple instructions. (R. at 526-28.) She opined that Mathias had a seriously
limited ability to follow work rules, to relate to co-workers, to interact with
supervisors, to function independently, to maintain attention/concentration, to
understand, remember and carry out detailed instructions, to maintain personal
appearance, to behave in an emotionally stable manner, to relate predictably in
social situations and to demonstrate reliability. (R. at 526-27.) Burke opined that
Mathias had no useful ability to deal with the public, to use judgment, to deal with
work stresses and to understand, remember and carry out complex instructions. (R.
at 526-27.) She found that Mathias would be absent from work more than two days
a month. (R. at 528.)

Progress reports from Mathias’s medical visits at Stone Mountain from
September 2011 through May 2012 indicate that Mathias’s mood and affect were
normal, as were her memory, judgment and insight. (R. at 576, 579, 582, 586,
-7-

590.) On June 14, 2012, Mathias returned for her second visit with Burke. (R. at
566.) Mathias complained of anxiety and panic. (R. at 566.) She reported that she
was taking a lower dosage of Prozac than before. (R. at 566.) Burke encouraged
Mathias to discuss increasing her dosage of Prozac with her primary care provider.
(R. at 566.)

On July 12, 2012, Burke completed another mental assessment indicating
that Mathias had a seriously limited ability to follow work rules, to relate to coworkers, to deal with the public, to use judgment, to interact with supervisors, to
deal

with

work

stresses,

to

function

independently,

to

maintain

attention/concentration, to understand, remember and carry out detailed and simple
instructions, to maintain personal appearance, to behave in an emotionally stable
manner, to relate predictably in social situations and to demonstrate reliability. (R.
at 568-70.) Burke opined that Mathias had no useful ability to understand,
remember and carry out complex instructions. (R. at 569.) She found that Mathias
would be absent from work more than two days a month. (R. at 570.)

On May 18, 2010, B. Wayne Lanthorn, Ph.D., a licensed clinical
psychologist, evaluated Mathias at the request of Disability Determination
Services. (R. at 392-98.) Lanthorn reported that Mathias displayed no signs of
ongoing psychotic processes or evidence of delusional thinking. (R. at 395.)
Mathias denied hallucinations. (R. at 395.) Lanthorn reported that Mathias’s affect
was flat and her mood depressed. (R. at 395.) Lanthorn diagnosed major depressive
disorder, single episode, moderate; chronic pain disorder associated with both
psychological factors and general medical conditions; and anxiety disorder, not

-8-

otherwise specified. (R. at 396.) He assessed Mathias’s then-current Global
Assessment of Functioning score, (“GAF”), 5 at 50 6 to 55.7 (R. at 397.)

Lanthorn opined that Mathias’s prognosis was between fair and guarded. (R.
at 397.) He noted that while Mathias was responsive to anti-depressive
medications, she continued to have a moderate degree of ongoing depression. (R.
at 397.) Lanthorn reported that Mathias’s memory was intact, but she had
difficulties with concentration. (R. at 397.) Mathias’s communication skills were
intact. (R. at 397.) Lanthorn opined that Mathias had no limitations in learning
simple tasks, but had mild to moderate limitations in her ability to learn
complicated tasks, to sustain concentration and to persist at tasks. (R. at 397.) He
found that Mathias had moderate limitations in her ability to interact with others on
the job, including co-workers, supervisors and the general public. (R. at 397.)
Lanthorn found that Mathias had mild limitations in her ability to deal with the
changes in and requirements of the workplace. (R. at 398.)

On June 3, 2010, Dr. Hillery Lake, M.D., a state agency physician,
completed a Psychiatric Review Technique form, (“PRTF”), indicating that
Mathias had mild restrictions on her ability to perform activities of daily living. (R.
at 57-58.) She found that Mathias had moderate difficulties in her ability to

5

The GAF scale ranges from zero to 100 and “[c]onsider[s] psychological, social, and
occupational functioning on a hypothetical continuum of mental health-illness.” DIAGNOSTIC
AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS FOURTH EDITION, (“DSM-IV”), 32
(American Psychiatric Association 1994).
6

A GAF score of 41-50 indicates that the individual has “[s]erious symptoms ... OR any
serious impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning….” See DSM-IV at 32.
7

A GAF score of 51-60 indicates that the individual has “[m]oderate symptoms ... OR
moderate difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning....” DSM-IV at 32.
-9-

maintain social functioning and in maintaining concentration, persistence or pace.
(R. at 57.) Dr. Lake found that Mathias had not experienced repeated episodes of
decompensation for extended duration. (R. at 57.)

Dr. Lake completed a mental assessment indicating that Mathias was
moderately limited in her ability to understand, remember and carry out detailed
instructions, to maintain attention and concentration for extended periods, to
complete a normal workday and workweek without interruptions from
psychologically based symptoms and to perform at a consistent pace without an
unreasonable number and length of rest periods, to interact appropriately with the
general public, to accept instructions and respond appropriately to criticism from
supervisors and to get along with co-workers or peers without distracting them or
exhibiting behavioral extremes. (R. at 60-62.) Dr. Lake noted that Mathias’s best
performance would be in a work setting that required limited interaction with
others. (R. at 61.)

On April 12, 2011, Lanthorn evaluated Mathias again at the request of
Disability Determination Services. (R. at 493-98.) Lanthorn reported that Mathias
displayed no signs of ongoing psychotic processes or evidence of delusional
thinking. (R. at 496.) Mathias denied hallucinations. (R. at 496.) Lanthorn noted
that Mathias was “very hostile,” and began the evaluation with the statement, “I
hate people.” (R. at 496.) Mathias could not explain why she hated people other
than they were “stupid and got on [her] nerves.” (R. at 496.) Mathias had a mild
degree of tremulousness. (R. at 496.) Lanthorn described Mathias’s mood as
agitated depression. (R. at 496.) Mathias reported no memory problems. (R. at
496.) She reported that she had difficulty concentrating. (R. at 496.) Lanthorn
diagnosed major depressive disorder, single episode, moderate to severe;
-10-

generalized anxiety disorder; and chronic pain disorder associated with both
psychological factors and general medical conditions. (R. at 497.) He assessed
Mathias’s then-current GAF score at 50 to 55. (R. at 497.)

Lanthorn opined that Mathias’s prognosis was guarded. (R. at 497.) He
noted that Mathias displayed short-term memory loss. (R. at 497.) Lanthorn
reported that Mathias presented the majority of signs and symptoms associated
with a fairly serious clinical depression, and it appeared that Mathias’s antidepressive medication was not effective. (R. at 497.) Lanthorn opined that Mathias
had no limitations in learning simple tasks, but would have difficulties with more
complicated work tasks. (R. at 498.) He opined that Mathias had moderate to
marked limitations in her ability to interact with others in the workplace. (R. at
498.) He found that Mathias had mild to moderate limitations in her ability to
sustain concentration and persist at tasks. (R. at 498.) Lanthorn found that Mathias
had mild or greater limitations in her ability to deal with the changes in and
requirements of the workplace. (R. at 498.)

On May 2, 2011, Dr. Andrew Bockner, M.D., a state agency physician,
completed PRTF indicating that Mathias had mild restrictions on her ability to
perform activities of daily living. (R. at 84-85.) He found that Mathias had
moderate difficulties in her ability to maintain social functioning and in
maintaining concentration, persistence or pace. (R. at 85.) Dr. Bockner found that
Mathias had not experienced repeated episodes of decompensation for extended
duration. (R. at 85.)

Dr. Bockner completed a mental assessment indicating that Mathias was
moderately limited in her ability to understand, remember and carry out detailed
-11-

instructions, to maintain attention and concentration for extended periods, to
complete a normal workday and workweek without interruptions from
psychologically based symptoms and to perform at a consistent pace without an
unreasonable number and length of rest periods, to accept instructions and respond
appropriately to criticism from supervisors and to get along with co-workers or
peers without distracting them or exhibiting behavioral extremes. (R. at 87-89.) Dr.
Bockner found that Mathias was markedly limited in her ability to interact
appropriately with the general public. (R. at 88.) Dr. Bockner noted that Mathias’s
best performance would be in a work setting that required limited interaction with
others. (R. at 89.)

On July 16, 2012, Robert S. Spangler, Ed.D., a licensed psychologist,
evaluated Mathias at the request of Mathias’s attorney. (R. at 596-600.) Spangler
noted that Mathias’s social skills were adequate. (R. at 598.) The Wechsler Adult
Intelligence Scale - Fourth Edition, (“WAIS-IV”), was administered, and Mathias
obtained a full-scale IQ score of 77. (R. at 599.) Spangler diagnosed major
depressive disorder, recent, moderate to severe, and moderate anxiety disorder, not
otherwise specified. (R. at 600.) Spangler assessed Mathias’s then-current GAF
score at 50 to 55. (R. at 600.)

Spangler completed a mental assessment indicating that Mathias had a
limited, but satisfactory, ability to maintain attention and concentration, when
medicated, and to understand, remember and carry out simple instructions. (R. at
601-03.) He opined that Mathias had a seriously limited ability to follow work
rules, to relate to co-workers, to deal with the public, to use judgment, to interact
with supervisors, to function independently, to understand, remember and carry out
detailed instructions, to maintain personal appearance, to behave in an emotionally
-12-

stable manner and to relate predictably in social situations. (R. at 601-02.) Spangler
opined that Mathias had no useful ability to deal with work stress, to understand,
remember and carry out complex instructions and to demonstrate reliability. (R. at
601-02.) He found that Mathias would be absent from work more than three days a
month. (R. at 603.)

III. Analysis

The Commissioner uses a five-step process in evaluating DIB and SSI
claims. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (2014). See also Heckler v. Campbell,
461 U.S. 458, 460-62 (1983); Hall v. Harris, 658 F.2d 260, 264-65 (4th Cir. 1981).
This process requires the Commissioner to consider, in order, whether a claimant
1) is working; 2) has a severe impairment; 3) has an impairment that meets or
equals the requirements of a listed impairment; 4) can return to her past relevant
work; and 5) if not, whether she can perform other work. See 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520, 416.920. If the Commissioner finds conclusively that a claimant is or is
not disabled at any point in this process, review does not proceed to the next step.
See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a) (2014).

Under this analysis, a claimant has the initial burden of showing that she is
unable to return to her past relevant work because of her impairments. Once the
claimant establishes a prima facie case of disability, the burden shifts to the
Commissioner. To satisfy this burden, the Commissioner must then establish that
the claimant has the residual functional capacity, considering the claimant’s age,
education, work experience and impairments, to perform alternative jobs that exist
in the national economy. See 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 423(d)(2)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A)-(B)
(West 2011 & West 2012); McLain v. Schweiker, 715 F.2d 866, 868-69 (4th Cir.
-13-

1983); Hall, 658 F.2d at 264-65; Wilson v. Califano, 617 F.2d 1050, 1053 (4th Cir.
1980).

The ALJ found that Mathias had the residual functional capacity to perform
simple, unskilled light work that required no more than occasional interaction with
the public or co-workers. (R. at 15.) In her brief, Mathias argues that the ALJ
erred by improperly determining her mental residual functional capacity.
(Plaintiff’s Memorandum In Support Of Her Motion For Summary Judgment,
(“Plaintiff’s Brief”), at 5-7.) Mathias further argues that the ALJ failed to address
all of the evidence in the record and indicate the weight given to such evidence.
(Plaintiff’s Brief at 7-8.) In particular, Mathias contends that the ALJ failed to
explain his reason for rejecting Lanthorn’s finding that she had marked limitation
in her ability to interact with others. (Plaintiff’s Brief at 7-8.) Mathias does not
challenge the ALJ’s findings with regard to her physical residual functional
capacity.

As stated above, the court’s function in this case is limited to determining
whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the ALJ’s findings.
This court must not weigh the evidence, as this court lacks authority to substitute
its judgment for that of the Commissioner, provided her decision is supported by
substantial evidence. See Hays, 907 F.2d at 1456. In determining whether
substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision, the court also must
consider whether the ALJ analyzed all of the relevant evidence and whether the
ALJ sufficiently explained his findings and his rationale in crediting evidence. See
Sterling Smokeless Coal Co. v. Akers, 131 F.3d 438, 439-40 (4th Cir. 1997).

-14-

A medical opinion is entitled to greater weight when it is supported by
relevant evidence, “particularly medical signs and laboratory findings,” and when
it is consistent with the “record as a whole.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(4).
416.927(c)(2)-(4) (2014). Based on my review of the record, I find that substantial
evidence exists to support the ALJ’s finding with regard to Mathias’s mental
residual functional capacity. The ALJ considered the opinion evidence of record.
(R. at 18-19.) The ALJ noted that he was giving “some” weight to Lanthorn’s
opinion and “little” weight to Burke and Spangler’s opinions. (R. at 18-19.) The
ALJ noted that Lanthorn was an acceptable medical source who had examined
Mathias twice. (R. at 18.) The ALJ stated that although Lanthorn’s opinion had
some variability, it generally found support in the medical evidence of record, with
the exception of marked limitations in social interaction. (R. at 18.)

The ALJ gave Burke’s and Spangler’s opinions “little” weight because they
were not supported by the medical evidence as a whole. (R. at 18-19.) On the day
that Burke provided her most recent opinion, Mathias’s treatment records revealed
that her mood, affect, orientation, memory, judgment and insight were normal. (R.
at 573.) Burke found that Mathias had no useful ability to understand, remember
and carry out complex instructions and a seriously limited ability in all other areas.
(R. at 568-69.) Spangler found that Mathias related well with adequate social
skills; she was an adequate historian; her associations were logical; she understood
the instructions for each task that she was asked to do; she demonstrated good
concentration and was appropriately persistent on tasks; and her pace was
adequate. (R. at 596-99.) The ALJ found that Burke’s and Spangler’s assessments
were contrary to Lanthorn’s assessment, as well as the state agency psychologists’
findings. (R. at 18-19.) While state agency physician, Dr. Bockner, found that
Mathias had marked limitations in her ability to interact with the general public, he
-15-

opined that Mathias’s best performance would be in a work setting that required
limited interaction with others. (R. at 88-89.)

In addition, the medical evidence shows that Mathias made numerous visits
to Stone Mountain, and progress notes show that her mood, affect, orientation,
memory, insight and judgment were repeatedly normal. (R. at 414, 416, 419, 422,
425, 429, 431, 434, 437, 440, 512, 517, 520, 523, 576, 579, 582, 586, 590.)
Spangler found that Mathias’s social skills were adequate and that she had the
judgment and skills necessary to handle her own finances. (R. at 598.) Lanthorn
found that Mathias’s communication skills were intact. (R. at 397.) Mathias
reported that she got along with people in authority, and she was never fired or laid
off from a job because of problems getting along with other people. (R. at 250,
282.) Furthermore, the record shows that Mathias showed improvement in her
symptoms with medication treatment. (R. at 325, 330, 397, 432, 519, 522.) “If a
symptom can be reasonably controlled by medication or treatment, it is not
disabling.” Gross v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 1163, 1166 (4th Cir. 1986).

Based on this, I find that substantial evidence supports the weighing of the
evidence by the ALJ. That being so, I further find that substantial evidence
supports the ALJ’s finding as to Mathias’s mental residual functional capacity and
his finding that Mathias was not disabled. An appropriate order and judgment will
be entered.

DATED:

March 13, 2015.
/s/

Pamela Meade Sargent
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-16-