ALAN N. BLOCH, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 29
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 11) is DENIED and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 13) is GRANTED.
First, Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ should have considered not just her medical history already contained in the record, but that he also should have acquired and considered all of her medical records from the past 27 years. The Court notes that Plaintiff filed her SSI application in November 2012, in which she claimed disability beginning on February 20, 2007. (R. 190). Moreover, the ALJ stated in his decision that he considered Plaintiff's complete medical history consistent with 20 C.F.R. § 416.912(d), which provides that evidence from more than a year before a claimant's filing date is generally not relevant to a case. Thus, there was no reason for the ALJ to seek out records from an earlier period—and certainly not records dating back 27 years. The Court therefore finds that the ALJ did not err in this regard.
Second, the Court finds no merit in Plaintiff's argument that the ALJ improperly relied on the testimony of the VE in his decision. In fact, the Social Security regulations expressly provide that an ALJ is permitted to use and rely on a VE's testimony.
Specifically, the ALJ asked the VE to assume an individual of the same age and education as Plaintiff, but with certain limitations including the following: being limited to performing work at the light exertional level; only standing and walking four hours and sitting six hours in an eight hour day; only occasional climbing, balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling; no climbing of ropes, ladders, and scaffolds due to history of epilepsy; avoiding all exposure to hazards such as unprotected heights and dangerous machinery, and avoiding concentrated exposure to dust, fumes, odors, gasses, and poor ventilation; no jobs requiring good peripheral vision; and only occasional pushing, pulling and overhead lifting with her right, dominant upper extremity. (R. 89-91). In an appropriate response to whether such a person could perform any work, the VE then testified that an individual with Plaintiff's background and limitations, as specifically spelled out by the ALJ, could perform certain light exertion jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy, including ticket seller, order caller, and marker. (R. 90-91). Therefore, the Court finds that the ALJ's hypothetical question to the VE fully accommodated the limitations properly included in the RFC, as discussed
Third, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ improperly assessed the medical opinions in the record in formulating Plaintiff's RFC. The Court notes that, as the finder of fact, it is the ALJ's responsibility to formulate a claimant's RFC, and the determination of whether an individual is disabled "is an ultimate issue reserved to the Commissioner."
In particular, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly failed to give sufficient weight to the opinion of consultative examiner Joanna R. Swauger, D.O. The Court notes, however, that the ALJ's opinion contains nearly three pages of discussion of the ALJ's reasons for giving little weight to Dr. Swauger's opinion. While it is not necessary to rehash the ALJ's entire analysis here, the ALJ included in his explanation consideration of certain critical factors, including the following: that Plaintiff admitted to Dr. Swauger that she had not taken any medications for two years, despite her complaints of significant pain; that Dr. Swauger did not review Plaintiff's longitudinal medical records; that the medical records did not credibly establish that Plaintiff had a herniated disc or was medically required to use crutches; that the findings of Dr. Swauger were not so abnormal as to support the highly restrictive limitations she found; that the breathing studies Dr. Swauger conducted did not support her findings; and that Plaintiff's ER visit for hives contradicted Dr. Swauger's findings since Plaintiff indicated then that she had no pain or seizure activity nor was she taking any medications. (R. 945-47). Thus, the Court finds that the ALJ thoroughly considered Dr. Swauger's findings and provided a comprehensive discussion of his evaluation of those findings in his decision.
Plaintiff also contends that it was improper for the ALJ to give "significant weight" to the assessments of state non-examining medical consultant James Caramanna, M.D., who, after reviewing all the relevant evidence of record as of May, —, found that Plaintiff "could perform a narrow range of light work, with environmental limitations, given Plaintiff's COPD." (R. 947). The ALJ explained that he found Dr. Caramanna's assessments to be "more consistent with the cumulative evidence of record, including [recent] ER records, which post-date Dr. Caramanna's and Dr. Swauger's assments." (R. 947). Although Plaintiff would prefer that the Court rely on Dr. Swauger's opinion, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has stated that, in making an RFC determination, an ALJ may give more weight to a non-examining professional's opinion if that opinion is better supported by the record.
Finally, Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ ignored the records from the doctors who treated her between September, 2009, and December, 2011, Fred C. Edge, M.D., and Mark G. Franz, D.O. First of all, the Court notes that the ALJ specifically discussed the records from these providers, making repeated references to them in his decision. Nevertheless, after a significant review of these materials, the ALJ ultimately concluded that, although the records "substantiate some impairments and limitations, the overall findings are mild to moderate." (R. 946-47). And while Plaintiff also complains that the doctors' treatment notes actually contradict the opinions of the state's "biased providers," the Court notes that one page Plaintiff cites contains cryptic comments, and neither page specifically cited by Plaintiff addresses functional limitations or indicates an actual opinion that Plaintiff is disabled. (R. 294, 595). Additionally, the treatment notes specifically cited are from more than one year before Plaintiff filed for SSI and thus pre-date the relevant period concerning her functioning during the period under review. (R. 294, 595).
Thus, upon review, the Court finds that the ALJ properly discharged his duty to consider Dr. Swauger's opinion, Dr. Caramanna's opinion, and the other relevant evidence presented in the record. Throughout his decision, the ALJ clearly considered all the evidence, provided discussion of the evidence to support his evaluation, and ultimately concluded that certain opinion evidence was not supported by the evidence as a whole. Therefore, the Court finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's evaluation of the opinions presented and his decisions as to the weight he gave to those opinions in making his ultimate determinations regarding Plaintiff's RFC.
Fourth, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in evaluating her subjective complaints. In determining whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ must consider all of a claimant's symptoms and the extent to which the symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence.
In this case, the ALJ discussed at significant length Plaintiff's medical history and records and Plaintiff's own statements regarding her alleged impairments. The ALJ found that Plaintiff has a number of severe impairments, including degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; history of post-traumatic seizures, with decreased peripheral vision; history of chronic neck, back and right shoulder sprain/strain, with pain; and history of adhesive capsulitis of the right shoulder. (R. 942). However, upon review of all the evidence, the ALJ ultimately found that the evidence as a whole simply does not support the extreme limitations Plaintiff alleges.
In support of her claim, however, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ "was required to give serious consideration to [her] subjective complaints, especially since the record contained evidence of impairments that could reasonably be expected to cause disabling pain." (Doc. No. 12, at 10). Also, Plaintiff concedes that, even if Dr. Swauger's reports might have been influenced by subjective information Plaintiff provided, those reports were not necessarily lacking in probative value, and she argues that the ALJ does not provide clear and convincing reasons for rejecting Dr. Swauger's opinion by questioning the credibility of Plaintiff's complaints. The Court finds, however, that the ALJ did give proper consideration to Plaintiff's complaints in finding her statements regarding her limitations to be not entirely credible, including the fact that Plaintiff has not sought any recent treatment for her various ailments (including daily epileptic seizures and significant pain), nor has she taken any medications for several years, and the fact that she admits to daily reading and watching television despite her visual problems and alleged pain. Moreover, as described
Additionally, it was proper for the ALJ to consider whether there was objective medical evidence that supported Plaintiff's testimony overall.
In sum, after thorough consideration of the evidence, the ALJ ultimately found that Plaintiff's "medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms; however, [her] statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely credible" for the reasons he provided in his decision. (R. 945). As described
Fifth, Plaintiff argues that she did not receive a full and fair hearing because of improper behavior on the part of the ALJ, which she contends included questioning that was "obnoxious, offensive, disrespectful, and unworthy of a government official of the United States of America." (Doc. No. 12, at 7). The regulations provide that "`[a]n administrative law judge shall not conduct a hearing if he or she is prejudiced or partial with respect to any party or has any interest in the matter pending for decision.'"
In this case, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ's "bickering questioning succeeded in making Suzie very uncomfortable and nauseous, and is not indicative of what a learned and courteous government adjudicator should be." (Doc. No. 12, at 8). Upon review of the transcript, however, the Court finds that the ALJ engaged in typical, routine questioning in order to draw out and clarify Plaintiff's allegations, and that his behavior towards Plaintiff and her counsel and his questioning overall was courteous, patient and professional in all respects.
Thus, in no way does the record indicate anything remotely akin to "deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible" regarding Plaintiff's case.
Lastly, Plaintiff argues that her attorneys, whom she had hired to represent her in this case, were ineffective at the hearing. Such contention does not, however, provide a basis for remanding her case because a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is "not cognizable on review of the Commissioner's decision."
In sum, the ALJ addressed all relevant evidence in the record, including full consideration of the opinion evidence, and he thoroughly discussed the basis for his RFC finding. After careful review of the record, the Court finds that there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ's reasons for not giving controlling weight to various opinions in the record, as well as his decision to give greater weight to other opinion evidence in reaching his final determination. Additionally, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err in assessing Plaintiff's credibility, nor did he err in relying on the testimony of the VE in reaching his decision. Finally, Plaintiff has not shown the existence of bias or improper behavior on the part of the ALJ. Accordingly, the Court affirms.