RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

BETH DEERE, Magistrate Judge.

Instructions

The following recommended disposition was prepared for Chief United States District Judge Brian S. Miller. A party to this dispute may file written objections to this recommendation. An objection must be specific and state the factual and/or legal basis for the objection. An objection to a factual finding must identify the finding and the evidence supporting the objection. Objections must be filed with the clerk of the court no later than 14 days from the date of this recommendation.1 The objecting party must serve the opposing party with a copy of an objection. Failing to object within 14 days waives the right to appeal questions of fact.2 If no objections are filed, Judge Miller may adopt the recommended disposition without independently reviewing all of the record evidence.

Reasoning for Recommended Disposition

Ginny Marie Stroud seeks judicial review of the denial of her application for supplemental security income (SSI).3 Ms. Stroud isn't eligible for disability insurance benefits because she has never worked. She claims she cannot work due to bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, depression, migraines, insomnia, chronic back pain, seizures, and tremors.4 Although she claims disability beginning at age 18, she isn't eligible for SSI before she applied. Therefore, this case considers whether she was disabled beginning on April 16, 2010, when she applied. At that time, she was 21 years old.

The Commissioner's decision. After considering the application, the Commissioner's ALJ determined that Ms. Stroud has severe impairments — schizoaffective disorder, cannabis dependence, post traumatic stress disorder, seizure disorder, and borderline personality disorder5 — but that she could work at all exertional levels with specified non-exertional limitations.6 Because a vocational expert identified work meeting the limitations that the ALJ found applicable, the ALJ concluded that Ms. Stroud was not disabled and denied the application.7

After the Commissioner's Appeals Council denied a request for review,8 the ALJ's decision became a final decision for judicial review.9 Ms. Stroud filed this case to challenge the ALJ's decision.10

In reviewing the decision, the court must determine whether substantial evidence supports the decision and whether the ALJ made a legal error.11 This recommendation explains why substantial evidence supports the decision and why the ALJ made no legal error.

Ms. Stroud's allegations. Ms. Stroud challenges the determination that she could work within the ALJ's limitations. She argues that the ALJ "selectively picked medical records to discount [her] complaints and failed to consider the medical evidence as a whole."12 She maintains that the ALJ ignored the frequency at which her mental symptoms recur and how often her medications require adjustment. She complains about the ALJ's reliance on medical non-compliance. She says the ALJ failed to properly consider her medical provider's opinion. For these reasons, she argues, substantial evidence does not support the ALJ's decision.

Applicable legal principles. Substantial evidence exists if a reasonable mind would accept the evidence as adequate to support the decision.13 In reviewing for substantial evidence, the court must consider the record as a whole.14 Reviewing for substantial evidence requires more than searching for the existence of substantial evidence.15 The court must consider all of the evidence—including evidence detracting from the decision16 — but the court may not reverse simply because substantial evidence supports an opposite conclusion.17

A reasonable mind would accept the evidence as adequate because Ms. Stroud's symptoms could be controlled with treatment. The ALJ's determination about a claimant's ability to work must be supported by medical evidence; a claimant's subjective allegations are not enough to prove she is disabled.18 Ms. Stroud presented years of medical evidence — much of it predating the time period for which benefits were denied. Reviewed as a whole, the medical evidence shows that treatment and compliance control Ms. Stroud's symptoms.

The remote evidence attributes Ms. Stroud's primary mental impairment (schizoaffective disorder) and her physical impairment (seizure disorder) to a history of drug use.19 The more probative evidence — the evidence generated during the time period for which benefits were denied — makes the same connection.20 The causal connection between Ms. Stroud's symptoms and drug use is important to her claim because a claimant cannot receive SSI if substance abuse contributes to her disability.21

The bigger problem with Ms. Stroud's claim is that the medical evidence shows that her symptoms improve with treatment. The improvement is important because an impairment "which can be controlled by treatment or medication is not considered disabling."22 Ms. Stroud improves when she takes prescribed medications and abstains from drug use.23

Ms. Stroud does not comply with all prescribed treatment. A claimant must comply with prescribed treatment if treatment can restore her ability to work; a claimant who fails to comply with prescribed treatment without good reason is barred from receiving SSI.24 Failing to follow a recommended course of treatment also weighs against a claimant's credibility.25

For the most part, Ms. Stroud took her prescribed medications, but she continued to use marijuana26 and declined psychotherapy.27 Ms. Stroud claims that the ALJ cited to "a single note of noncompliance,"28 but the record contains numerous instances of noncompliance. She also argues that the ALJ ignored the frequency at which her mental symptoms recur and how often her medications require adjustment, but medication adjustments do control her symptoms. Neither complaint provides a basis for relief.

Ms. Stroud's reliance on her long-time medical provider's medical source statement29 provides no basis for relief because the ALJ considered the provider's statement and his treatment notes. Although the provider — a psychiatric nurse practitioner — isn't an acceptable medical source under the Commissioner's regulations, the ALJ adopted the supported limitations. For example, according to the provider, Ms. Stroud is seriously limited, but not precluded, from doing unskilled work involving short, simple instructions, and in responding to changes in work routine.30

The ALJ responded by requiring tasks requiring reasoning level 1.31 Reasoning level 1 requires the ability to "[a]pply commonsense understanding to carry out simple one- or two-step instructions. Deal with standardized situations with occasional or no variables in or from these situations encountered on the job."32 Thus, the work restrictions included in the ALJ determination addressed Ms. Stroud's limitations. According to the medical provider, Ms. Stroud was seriously limited, but not precluded, from working with co-workers and accepting criticism from supervisors,33 and was unable to deal with the public.34 The ALJ responded by requiring no interaction with the public and superficial contact with co-workers.

As for other reported limitations, the medical provider's treatment notes show that Ms. Stroud's symptoms improved with treatment, but that she did not comply with all medical recommendations. The medical provider suggested that Ms. Stroud's illnesses would be debilitating even if Ms. Stroud abstained from substance abuse, but it logically follows that a provider prescribes treatment that will improve his patient's symptoms and that Ms. Stroud would improve by following all medical recommendations. Ms. Stroud's failure to follow medical recommendations undermines the provider's opinion. The ALJ gave the provider's opinion appropriate weight.

Conclusion and Recommendation

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision. The ALJ made no legal error. For these reasons, the undersigned magistrate judge recommends DENYING Ms. Stroud's request for relief (docket entry # 2) and AFFIRMING the Commissioner's decision.