Wagoner v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S 15 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 10 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 12 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. It is further ORDERED that this civil action be STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment on this matter. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. on 12/27/16. (copy to counsel via CM/ECF) (lmm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLIE GOFF WAGONER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 5:15CV134
(STAMP)

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I.

Procedural History

The plaintiff, Charlie Goff Wagoner (“Wagoner”), filed an
application for Supplemental Security Income Benefits under Title
XVI of the Social Security Act.
alleged

disability

since

April

In the application, Wagoner
30,

2012

due

to

back,

neck,

shoulder, and hip problems, depression, arthritis, high blood
pressure, migraine headaches, “bone tumor on the left forearm,”
lightheadedness, and “light heart attack.”
The

Social

application

Security

initially

and

ECF No. 7-3 at 2.

Administration
on

denied

reconsideration.

Wagoner’s

Wagoner

then

appeared with counsel at a hearing before an Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”).

At the hearing, Wagoner testified on his own

behalf, as did a vocational expert.

The ALJ issued a decision

finding

that

Wagoner

suffered

from

severe

impairments

of

degenerative disc disease, anxiety, and major depressive disorder.
However, the ALJ found that Wagoner was not disabled under the
Social Security Act.

Instead, the ALJ found that Wagoner had a

Residual Functional Capacity to perform light-level work, with
certain non-exertional restrictions, that exists in significant
numbers in the national economy.

Thus, Wagoner’s benefits were

denied. Wagoner then timely filed an appeal of the decision to the
Appeals Council.

The Appeals Council denied Wagoner’s request for

review.
Wagoner then filed this civil action seeking judicial review
of the ALJ’s decision.

The case was referred to United States

Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble for submission of proposed
findings of fact and recommendation for disposition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B).

Both parties filed motions for summary judgment.

After consideration of those motions, the magistrate judge entered
a report recommending that Wagoner’s motion for summary judgment be
denied and that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment be
granted.

Wagoner did not file objections to the report and

recommendation.
II.

Applicable Law

As there were no objections filed to the magistrate judge’s
recommendation, his findings and recommendation will be upheld
unless they are “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”

2

28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(A). Additionally, because no party filed objections to
the report and recommendation, the parties waived their right to
appeal from a judgment of this Court based thereon. Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 148-53 (1985).
III.

Discussion

Wagoner argues that the ALJ erred by affording “no weight” to
the medical opinions of his treating physician Kalapala S. Rao,
M.D. and his consulting physicians T.J. Janick, M.D. and Jason
Fincham, M.D.
“great

He further argues that the ALJ erred by affording

weight”

to

the

opinion

physician, Fulvio Franyutti, M.D.

of

a

state

agency

consulting

Specifically, Wagoner argues

that the ALJ completely rejected his treating and consulting
physicians’ opinions without providing adequate analysis of the
regulatory factors for evaluating medical opinions at 20 C.F.R. §
416.927.
The magistrate judge correctly noted that the ALJ must “always
consider the medical opinions in . . . [the] record together with
the rest of the relevant evidence . . . receive[d].”
416.927(b).

20 C.F.R. §

“Generally, [the ALJ will] give more weight to

opinions from . . . treating sources . . . .

If . . . a treating

source’s opinion . . . is well-supported by medically acceptable
clinical

and

laboratory

diagnostic

techniques

and

is

not

inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in . . . [the]
record, [it is entitled to] . . . controlling weight.”

3

Id. §

416.927(c)(2).

If a treating physician’s opinion is not afforded

controlling weight, the ALJ must evaluate the opinion as it would
any other medical opinion.

Id.

In evaluating medical opinions

from non-treating sources, the ALJ should consider: (1) “[h]ow long
the source has known and how frequently the source has seen the
individual;” (2) “[h]ow consistent the opinion is with other
evidence;” (3) “[t]he degree to which the source presents relevant
evidence to support an opinion;” (4) “[h]ow well the source
explains the opinion;” (5) “[w]hether the source has a specialty or
area of expertise related to the individual’s impairment(s);” and
(6) “[a]ny other factors that tend to support or refute the
opinion.”

SSR

06-03p

at

4-5

(2006);

see

20

also

C.F.R.

§

416.927(c).
The

magistrate

adequately

explained

judge
his

correctly
reasoning

concluded

for

that

rejecting

the

opinions of Wagoner’s treating and consulting physicians.

the

ALJ

medical
First,

the ALJ explained that he rejected Dr. Rao’s opinion because it was
inconsistent with Dr. Rao’s own treatment notes.

Second, the

magistrate judge concluded that the ALJ adequately explained that
he gave no weight to Dr. Janick’s opinion because there was no
evidence in the record to support it.

Third, the magistrate judge

concluded that the ALJ properly explained that he rejected Dr.
Fincham’s opinion because it was not supported by his own treatment
notes.

Fourth, as to Dr. Franyutti’s opinion, the ALJ explained

4

that he afforded great weight to that opinion because it was
consistent with Wagoner’s treatment history and the objective
medical evidence.

While the ALJ did not explicitly discuss each

factor of § 416.927 as to each opinion, his reasoning is clear and
traceable to those factors. Accordingly, this Court finds no clear
error in the magistrate judge’s conclusions.
IV.

Conclusion

For the above reasons, the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation (ECF No. 15) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED.

Accordingly,

the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED
and the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 10) is
DENIED.

It is further ORDERED that this civil action be 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
Rule of Civil Procedure 58, the Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment
on this matter.
DATED:

December 27, 2016

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

5