Cappillo v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE, GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT, DENYING THE PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,AND OVERRULING THE OBJECTIONS BY THE PLAINTIFF: Denying 9 Motion for Summary Judgment; Granting 11 Motion for Summary Judgment; Adopting 14 Report and Recommendations ; Overruling 15 Objections to R/R; and Dismissing and Striking case from active docket; Clerk directed to enter judgment pursuant to FRCP 58. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr on 10/28/15. (soa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MICHAEL SCOTT CAPPILLO,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 5:15CV28
(STAMP)

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE,
GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT,
DENYING THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
AND OVERRULING THE OBJECTIONS BY THE PLAINTIFF
I.

Procedural History

In this civil action, the plaintiff argues that the Social
Security Administration (“SSA”) incorrectly denied his claim for
disability benefits, which he initially filed in 2011.
The

plaintiff

asserts

that

he

suffers

from

ECF No. 1.

several

mental

impairments, which relate to various mood disorders. The plaintiff
began treatment for those mood disorders in 2012.

In addition to

his mental impairments, the plaintiff believes that he suffers from
physical impairments that limit his ability to work.

Those

physical impairments include mild degenerative changes in his lower
back.

At the plaintiff’s initial hearing, he indicated that his

mental impairments affect him the most.

He pointed to his anger

management concerns and his general ability to interact with
people.

Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) used the

five-step sequential process under 20 C.F.R. § 416.20 to conclude
that the plaintiff was not disabled for purposes of his claim.

In

particular, the ALJ found that after considering the plaintiff’s
age, residual functional capacity (“RFC”), and experience, many
occupations exist that the plaintiff could pursue.

The Appeals

Council denied the plaintiff’s appeal of the ALJ’s decision.
The parties then filed their respective motions for summary
judgment.1

ECF Nos. 9 and 11.

In the plaintiff’s motion, he

argues the following: (1) that the ALJ did not properly consider
his treating sources’ opinions of his impairments; (2) that the ALJ
failed to properly review the applicable listing of impairments as
applied to the plaintiff; and (3) that the ALJ failed to properly
apply the plaintiff’s limitations to the RFC determination. In the
defendant’s motion, she argues that the ALJ properly considered all
testimony and evidence as applied to the five-step sequential
process.
United States Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert filed a report
and recommendation, wherein he recommends that the defendant’s
motion for summary judgment should be granted and the plaintiff’s
motion should be denied.

ECF No. 14.

The magistrate judge first

found that the ALJ properly considered the testimony of the
plaintiff’s treating sources.

Next, the magistrate judge found

1

It should be noted that the plaintiff filed a response to the
SSA’s motion. ECF No. 13.
2

that

the

ALJ

discussed

and

explained

how

the

plaintiff’s

impairments failed to satisfy the relevant Listing of Impairments.
Finally, the magistrate judge determined that the ALJ’s credibility
determination was not patently wrong, and thus the ALJ’s findings
were supported by substantial evidence.
The plaintiff timely filed objections, wherein he essentially
reasserts his former arguments.

ECF No. 15.

For the reasons set

forth below, the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge
is

AFFIRMED

AND

ADOPTED

in

its

entirety.

Accordingly,

the

defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, the plaintiff’s
motion

for

summary

judgment

is

DENIED,

and

the

plaintiff’s

objections are OVERRULED.
II.

Background

The plaintiff claims that he applied for disability benefits
based on disabilities he had since 2005.
2007.

He was last employed in

He claims that he suffers from both mental impairments and

physical

impairments.

Regarding

his

mental

impairments,

the

plaintiff was diagnosed in 2011 with the following mood disorders:
bipolar

disorders,

narcissistic

personality

intermittent explosive disorder, among others.

disorder,

and

As to his physical

impairments, the plaintiff has the following severe impairments:
arthritis, degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, disc
herniation, and carpel tunnel syndrome, among others. Based on his

3

physical and mental impairments, the plaintiff sought disability
benefits.
Following

a

hearing

on

the

plaintiff’s

concluded that the plaintiff was not disabled.

claim,

the

ALJ

In his findings,

the ALJ outlined the five-step sequential evaluation, and took
issue with the third and fifth step. Regarding step three, the ALJ
examined both the physical and mental impairments of the plaintiff.
The ALJ first found that the plaintiff’s physical impairments,
combined with a finding of obesity, did not satisfy the Listing of
Impairments. This was a result of the plaintiff’s overall mobility
and capabilities.

The ALJ then examined the plaintiff’s mental

impairments, which the plaintiff asserted as his main disabling
condition.

The

ALJ

analyzed

whether

the

plaintiff’s

mental

impairments (1) markedly restricted daily living activities, (2)
markedly affected social functioning, and (3) applied to the
additional appropriate criteria.

However, the ALJ found that the

plaintiff’s mental impairments provided only mild limitations
regarding his daily living activities, social functioning, and
other additional criteria.

The ALJ relied on the evidence as to

those

which

mental

impairments,

provided

that

the

plaintiff

received no treatment for such impairments until 2012.

Moreover,

the ALJ found that the RFC accommodated the mental conditions that
the plaintiff allegedly possessed.

4

Viewed collectively, the ALJ

ultimately found that the plaintiff did not satisfy the third-step
of the evaluation process.
The ALJ concluded the same regarding the fifth and final step.
At the hearing, an impartial vocational expert stated that other
jobs existed which the plaintiff could perform.

Those jobs

included an office helper, mail clerk, or sewing machine operator.
Further, the vocational expert pointed out that 30 such jobs
existed in the local economy, and that approximately 60,500 such
jobs existed in the national economy.

R. 71.

Based on the

testimony of the vocational expert, the ALJ found that relevant
jobs existed which the plaintiff could perform.

Thus, the ALJ

concluded that the plaintiff was not disabled.
III.
A.

Applicable Law

Standard of Review
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.

Because the plaintiff filed

objections, this Court will undertake a de novo review as to those
portions of the report and recommendation to which objections were
made.

5

B.

Substantial Evidence Standard
Regarding findings by the ALJ in civil actions such as this,

however, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
has stated that “[u]nder the Social Security Act, [a reviewing
court] must uphold the factual findings of the Secretary if they
are supported by substantial evidence and were reached through
application of the correct legal standard.”
F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996).

Craig v. Chater, 76

“Substantial evidence is such

relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.”

Id.

A reviewing court “does not reweigh

evidence or make credibility determinations in evaluating whether
a

decision

is

supported

by

substantial

evidence;

‘[w]here

conflicting evidence allows reasonable minds to differ,’ we defer
to the Commissioner’s decision.”

Thompson v. Astrue, 442 F. App’x

804, 805 (4th Cir. 2011) (quoting Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d
650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005)).
In order to determine if a claimant is “disabled” under the
Social

Security

evaluation.
whether:
activity;”

Act,

the

ALJ

uses

a

five-step

sequential

Under this five-step process, the ALJ determines

(1)
(2)

the
the

claimant
claimant

engages

in

maintains

“substantial
a

“severe

gainful
medically

determinable physical or mental impairment;” (3) the impairment
satisfies one of the listings contained in the regulations; (4)
when considering the claimant’s “residual functional capacity”

6

(“RFC”), the claimant is able to engage in his or her “past
relevant work;” and (5) the claimant “can make an adjustment to
other work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a); see also Molina
v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012).
IV.

Discussion

As stated earlier, the plaintiff argues the following in both
his motion for summary judgment and in his objections: (1) that the
ALJ did not properly consider his treating sources’ opinions about
his impairments; (2) that the ALJ failed to properly review the
applicable List of Impairments as applied to the plaintiff; and (3)
that the ALJ failed to properly apply the plaintiff’s limitations
to the RFC.

Those contentions are discussed below in the order

presented.
A.

Consideration of Treat Sources’ Opinions
The plaintiff believes that the ALJ failed to appropriately

weigh the opinions of the plaintiff’s treating sources.

In

evaluating and weighing the medical opinions for a disability
claim, which an ALJ must always do, an ALJ considers the following
factors: (1) whether the treating source examined the claimant; (2)
the treatment relationship between the treating source and the
claimant; (3) the amount of support that the treating source
presents for his or her opinion; (4) the consistency of such
opinion; and (5) whether the treating source is a specialist about
the medical issues.

20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (2012).

7

The United

States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has found that
“although the treating physician rule generally requires a court to
accord greater weight to the testimony of a treating physician, the
rule does not require that the testimony be given controlling
weight.”

Hunter v. Sullivan, 993 F.2d 31, 35 (4th Cir. 1992) (per

curiam) (citing Campbell v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1247, 1250 (4th Cir.
1986)).

Moreover, the ALJ “may choose to give less weight to the

testimony of a treating physician if there is persuasive contrary
evidence[.]”

Sullivan, 993 F.2d at 35 (citing Foster v. Heckler,

780 F.2d 1125, 1127 (4th Cir. 1986)).
The case law above permits an ALJ to give a treating source’s
testimony less weight when “persuasive contrary evidence” exists.
In this case, the record demonstrates that such contrary evidence
exists.

The

plaintiff’s

psychiatrist,

who

had

treated

the

plaintiff for only a short period of time, testified that the
plaintiff maintained a Global Assessment of Functioning (“GAF”)
score of 60.

The ALJ, however, took issue with her testimony

because the psychiatrist’s opinion was based on subjective rather
than objective determinations.

The ALJ then pointed to the

statements by an examining psychologist and a state agency medical
consultant. The examining psychologist reported that the plaintiff
exaggerated his medical conditions. More telling, however, was the
report of the state agency medical consultant, which stated that
“[the

plaintiff]

reports

many

limitations

8

not

supported

by

objective evidence from examining or treating source.”

R. 902.

Further, the record shows that several treating doctors observed
that

the

plaintiff

maintained

normal

function,

attention,

communication and orientation. See, e.g., R. 953, 959, 1036, 1038.
The plaintiff objects to that finding, arguing that the ALJ did not
sufficiently explain why the plaintiff’s treating sources received
lesser weight.

The plaintiff is correct in pointing out that the

ALJ did not formalistically recite every factor or reason as to why
his treating sources’ testimony received less weight. However, the
opinions and evidence discussed above, and many other instances
throughout the record, show that persuasive contrary evidence
existed and was considered by the ALJ. Moreover, the ALJ discussed
his consideration of such evidence, and “was within his discretion”
to

give

lesser

weight

to

the

plaintiff’s

treating

sources.

Sullivan, 993 F.2d at 35. Thus, substantial evidence supported the
decision of the ALJ to do so.
B.

Review of Impairment Listings
The plaintiff next argues that the ALJ failed to adequately

discuss the evidence relied on when concluding that the plaintiff’s
mental and physical impairments failed to satisfy the List of
Impairments.

The plaintiff also reasserted this argument in his

objections.

The plaintiff primarily objects because the ALJ

allegedly failed to consider and discuss the specific List of

9

Impairments criteria, and failed to cite to any medical evidence as
to why the plaintiff’s impairments did not satisfy such list.
Generally speaking, an ALJ “is not required ‘to use particular
language or adhere to a particular format in conducting his
analysis,’

but

the

decision

must

demonstrate

‘that

there

is

sufficient development of the record and explanation of findings to
permit meaningful review.’”

Moore v. Astrue, 2010 WL 3394657, at

*6 n.12 (July 27, 2010 E.D. Va.) (quoting Jones v. Barnhart, 364
F.3d 501, 505 (3d Cir. 2004)). More importantly, “a court need not
remand a Social Security disability determination when . . . there
is elsewhere in the ALJ’s opinion an equivalent discussion of the
medical evidence relevant to Step Three analysis.”

Schoofield v.

Barnhart, 220 F. Supp. 2d 512, 522 (D. Md. 2002); see McCartney v.
Apfel, 28 F. App’x 277, 279 (4th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (“[T]he
ALJ need only review medical evidence once in his decision.”).
Nonetheless,

an

ALJ

should

identify

the

relevant

listed

impairments, and then compare the criteria to the evidence of a
claimant’s symptoms.

Cook v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 1168, 1173 (4th

Cir. 1986).
On the one hand, the law above supports the plaintiff’s
position that the ALJ must identify the relevant listed impairments
and

apply

the

evidence

of

the

plaintiff’s

impairment criteria, as required under Cook.

symptoms

to

such

On the other hand,

however, the plaintiff’s assertion that the ALJ in this case failed

10

to do so, or that the ALJ “did not cite to a single piece of
medical evidence” when considering the List of Impairments is
incorrect.

The case law cited above does not require an ALJ to

discuss relevant medical evidence for the step three analysis
solely under that section of the ALJ’s opinion.

Rather, “the ALJ

must provide “elsewhere [in his or her] opinion an equivalent
discussion

of

analysis.”

Schoofield, 220 F. Supp. 2d at 522; McCartney, 28 F.

App’x at 279.

the

medical

evidence

relevant

to

Step

Three

Indeed, it is true that discussing the medical

evidence under the third step in the ALJ’s opinion would have been
preferable and clearer. However, “the ALJ’s explanation within the
RFC assessment is sufficient to satisfy the ALJ’s duty to explain
his decision.”

Moore, 2010 WL 3394657, at *6 n.12 (internal

citation omitted).

Here, the ALJ discussed the relevant listed

impairments and the criteria under the List of Impairments. See R.
23-24.

Regarding the mental impairments, which were what the

plaintiff claimed were his primary disabilities, the ALJ stated
that “[t]he claimant’s mental impairments are discussed in more
detail below.”

R. 24 (emphasis added).

Following that statement,

the ALJ then discussed those impairments and the evidence related
to them, including medical opinions, medical exhibits, and relevant
reports in the following section.

R. 24-29.

Based on the medical

evidence discussed in his findings, the ALJ both concluded the
plaintiff’s alleged impairments were inapplicable to the List of

11

Impairments and determined the appropriate RFC of the plaintiff.
Phrased another way, the ALJ “connect[ed] the evidence to the
conclusion through an ‘accurate and logical bridge.’”

Stewart v.

Astrue, 561 F.3d 679, 684 (7th Cir. 2009) (internal citations
omitted).

In light of the record before this Court, it is clear

that substantial evidence exists to support the ALJ’s conclusions
on the issue.
C.

Limitations Compared to the RFC
The final contention raised by the plaintiff, both in his

motion and objections, is that the ALJ failed to account for all of
the plaintiff’s limitations in his RFC finding. In particular, the
plaintiff claims that the ALJ first admitted that the plaintiff’s
intermittent explosive disorder was a severe impairment.

Despite

that determination, the plaintiff contends that the ALJ included no
limitations from this impairment in his RFC finding.
As

the

magistrate

judge

correctly

points

out,

an

ALJ’s

credibility determination will be reversed only if the claimant
shows that such determination was patently wrong.
Sullivan, 890 F.2d 961, 965 (7th Cir. 1989).

Kelley v.

Here, the ALJ

explained why he did not provide a limitation for the plaintiff’s
alleged rage and anger outbursts associated with his intermittent
explosive disorder.
record

showed

authorities.

no

As to that disorder, the ALJ noted that the
aggressive

behavior

or

issues

with

legal

The ALJ acknowledged that the plaintiff’s alleged

12

impairments could cause some of the symptoms that the plaintiff
described, but that those symptoms were “not to the frequency or
debilitating degree of severity alleged[.]”

Further, the ALJ

pointed to opinions and reports in the record that questioned the
credibility of the plaintiff.
statement

of

an

examining

For example, the ALJ cited the

psychologist

that

found

that

plaintiff “tended to exaggerate his problems and symptoms.”
statement,

along

with

other

such

evidence

in

the

the
That

record,

demonstrates why the ALJ both questioned the credibility of the
plaintiff and declined to include the limitation that the plaintiff
believes

should

demonstrated
plaintiff

have

that

was

been

the

patently

included.

ALJ’s

The

credibility

wrong.

More

plaintiff

determination

importantly,

has

not

of

the

substantial

evidence exists so as to justify the ALJ’s findings as to the RFC
and associated limitations.
IV.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the report and recommendation
of the magistrate judge (ECF No. 14) is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED IN ITS
ENTIRETY,
OVERRULED.

and

the

plaintiff’s

Accordingly,

the

objections
defendant’s

(ECF
motion

No.
for

15)

are

summary

judgment (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED, and the plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 9) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this memorandum
opinion and order to counsel of record herein. Pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 58, the Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment
on this matter.

It is further ORDERED that this case be DISMISSED

and STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court.
DATED:

October 28, 2015

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

14