Karpinski v. Commissioner of Social Security et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING 11 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE: DENYING 8 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; and GRANTING 9 defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. This case is DISMISSED with PREJUDICE and STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court. Clerk directed to enter judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr on 1/3/12. (cc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MELINDA KARPINSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 5:11CV66
(STAMP)

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I.

Procedural History

The plaintiff, Melinda Karpinski, protectively filed claims
for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security
Income (“SSI”) under Titles II and XVI, respectively, of the Social
Security Act. In her application, the plaintiff alleges disability
beginning March 14, 2006.
denied

both

of

reconsideration.

the

The Social Security Administration

plaintiff’s

claims

initially

and

upon

The plaintiff then requested a hearing, and a

hearing was held on May 6, 2009 before an administrative law judge
(“ALJ”).

The plaintiff, as well as a vocational expert (“VE”),

appeared and testified at the hearing.

On June 19, 2009, the ALJ

issued a decision finding that the plaintiff was not disabled
within the meaning of the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council
denied the plaintiff’s request for review, rendering the ALJ’s
decision final.

The plaintiff filed this complaint against the

Commissioner of Social Security to obtain judicial review of the
final decision denying her applications for SSI and DIB.
The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge David
J.

Joel

for

submission

recommendation

for

of

proposed

disposition

findings

pursuant

of

to

fact
28

and

U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B). Both the plaintiff and the defendant filed motions
for summary judgment.
issued

a

plaintiff’s

report

On November 14, 2011, the magistrate judge

and

motion

recommendation

for

summary

recommending

judgment

be

that

the

that

the

denied,

defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted, and that the
decision of the Commissioner be affirmed.

Upon submitting his

report, Magistrate Judge Joel informed the parties that if they
objected to any portion of his proposed findings of fact and
recommendation for disposition, they must file written objections
within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report.
Neither party filed objections.
II.

Applicable Law

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court must conduct
a

de

novo

review

of

any

portion

of

the

magistrate

recommendation to which objection is timely made.

judge’s

As to those

portions of a recommendation to which no objection is made, a
magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation will be upheld
unless they are “clearly erroneous.”

See Webb v. Califano, 458 F.

Supp.

this

825

(E.D.

Cal.

1979).

In

2

case,

no

party

filed

objections to the report and recommendation, thus, the plaintiff
waived her right to appeal from a judgment of this Court based
thereon.

Thomas

v.

Arn,

474

U.S.

140,

148-53

(1985).

Accordingly, this Court reviews the report and recommendation of
the magistrate judge for clear error.
III.

Discussion

In her motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff alleges that
the ALJ erred by: (1) failing to find that she met Listing 1.04(A)
of disability for spinal impairment; and (2) failing to honor the
functional limitations of her treating physician, John Schultz,
M.D.

The plaintiff also argues that she should be found disabled

because of pain alone, which she alleges severely affects her daily
life.
In his motion for summary judgment, the defendant argues that
substantial

evidence

supports

the

ALJ’s

finding

that

the

plaintiff’s limitations do not disable her from all work in the
national economy. Specifically, the defendant asserts: (1) because
the plaintiff does not experience atrophy and the neurological
findings of her treating physician were normal, the ALJ did not err
in finding that she did not meet Listing 1.04(A); (2) the ALJ
complied with the regulations in exercising her discretion and
rejecting

Dr.

Schultz’s

disability

opinion;

and

(3)

the

ALJ

complied with the regulations in finding the plaintiff not fully
credible.

3

In his report and recommendation, the magistrate judge first
discusses the disability standard under the Social Security Act and
the five-step evaluation process used by the Social Security
Administration to determine if a claimant is disabled.

See 42

U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520; 416.920.
magistrate

judge

then

reviewed

each

of

the

ALJ’s

The

findings,

concluding: (1) the ALJ correctly determined that the plaintiff
does not meet Listing 1.04(A) for a spinal impairment; (2) the ALJ
assigned proper weight to Dr. Shultz’s opinion; and (3) the ALJ
properly evaluated the plaintiff’s credibility and rejected her
subjective complaints of pain.
An ALJ’s findings will be upheld if supported by substantial
evidence.

See Milburn Colliery Co. v. Hicks, 138 F.3d 524, 528

(4th Cir. 1998). Substantial evidence is that which a “‘reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’”

Hays v.

Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990) (quoting Richardson
v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)).

Further, the “‘possibility

of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not
prevent an administrative agency’s findings from being supported by
substantial evidence.’”

Sec’y of Labor v. Mutual Mining, Inc., 80

F.3d 110, 113 (4th Cir. 1996) (quoting Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n,
383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966)).
With regard to the ALJ’s determination that the plaintiff does
not meet Listing 1.04(A) for a spinal impairment, this Court agrees

4

with the magistrate judge and finds that substantial evidence
supports both the ALJ’s rejection of Dr. Korzi’s opinion, as well
as the weight assigned to Dr. Sella’s opinion.

In this case, Dr.

Korzi’s opinion is not an “acceptable medical source” because it is
the assessment of a chiropractor. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513(d)(1),
416.913(d)(1); see also Lee v. Sullivan, 945 F.2d 687, 691 (4th
Cir. 1991) (“At best, [a chiropractor’s] assessment can qualify
only as a layman’s opinion.”).

Moreover, Dr. Korzi’s opinion is

inconsistent with other substantial medical evidence in the record,
particularly Dr. Shultz’s treatment notes.
agrees

that

the

ALJ

properly

rejected

Therefore, this Court
Dr.

Korzi’s

opinion.

Although Dr. Sella’s opinion is an “acceptable medical source,”
like Dr. Korzi’s opinion, it is inconsistent with other substantial
medical evidence, including Dr. Shultz’s treatment notes.
this

Court

finds

no

clear

error

in

the

magistrate

Thus,
judge’s

determination that the ALJ assigned proper weight to Dr. Sella’s
opinion.
Next, the magistrate judge turns to the ALJ’s assessment of
the plaintiff’s treating physician’s opinion, concluding that the
ALJ assigned proper weight to Dr. Shultz’s opinion because his
functional

capacity

evaluation

is

substantial evidence in the record.

inconsistent

with

other

According to the magistrate

judge, Dr. Shultz’s findings regarding the plaintiff’s physical
limitations are not supported by his treatment notes. Further, the

5

magistrate judge finds that Dr. Schultz’s functional capacity
evaluation is inconsistent with the assessments performed on the
plaintiff

by

doctors

from

the

state

agency.

Given

these

contradictions, this Court finds no clear error in the magistrate
judge’s determination that the ALJ properly rejected Dr. Schultz’s
opinion.
Finally, the magistrate judge discusses the ALJ’s credibility
determination,
evidence.

finding

that

it

is

supported

by

substantial

The magistrate judge notes that the ALJ cites to

evidence from the plaintiff’s own testimony, as well as objective
findings

from

descriptions

the

of

her

record,

that

symptoms,

contradict

pain,

and

the

plaintiff’s

impairments.

After

reviewing the two-step process for determining whether a person is
disabled by pain or other symptoms, this Court agrees that because
medical

and

non-medical

evidence

is

inconsistent

with

the

plaintiff’s subjective complaints, the ALJ properly found that the
plaintiff exaggerated the nature and extent of her impairments and
that her complaints are not fully credible.

See Craig v. Chater,

76 F.3d 585, 594 (4th Cir. 1996) (“First, there must be objective
medical evidence showing the existence of a medical impairment
. . . which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or
other symptoms alleged . . . .

It is only after a claimant has met

her threshold obligation . . . that the intensity and persistence
of the claimant’s pain, and the extent to which it affects her

6

ability to work, must be evaluated.”).

Further, there is nothing

in the record to suggest that the ALJ’s credibility determination
is patently wrong.

See Kenney v. Astrue, No. 5:11CV29, 2011 WL

4346306 (N.D. W. Va. Aug. 26, 2011) (“We will reverse an ALJ’s
credibility determination only if the claimant can show it was
patently wrong.”) (internal quotations omitted).
This Court has reviewed the record, as well as the parties’
motions for summary judgment, and for the reasons set forth in the
report and recommendation, concurs with the magistrate judge that
the Commissioner’s decision denying the plaintiff’s application for
SSI and DIB is supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the
magistrate

judge’s

report

and

recommendation

is

affirmed

and

adopted.
IV.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, this Court finds that the
magistrate judge’s recommendation is not clearly erroneous and
hereby AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the report and recommendation of the
magistrate judge.

Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment is DENIED and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment
is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that this case be DISMISSED with
PREJUDICE and STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this memorandum
opinion and order to counsel of record herein. Pursuant to Federal

7

Rule of Civil Procedure 58, the Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment
on this matter.
DATED:

January 3, 2012

/s/ Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8