Filed: Oct. 28, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-28-2003 Morris v. Comm Social Security Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 03-1332 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003 Recommended Citation "Morris v. Comm Social Security" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 181. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/181 This decision is brought to you for free and open access b
Summary: Opinions of the United 2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-28-2003 Morris v. Comm Social Security Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 03-1332 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003 Recommended Citation "Morris v. Comm Social Security" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 181. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/181 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by..
More
Opinions of the United
2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
10-28-2003
Morris v. Comm Social Security
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-1332
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
Recommended Citation
"Morris v. Comm Social Security" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 181.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/181
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 03-1332
CYNTHIA MORRIS,
Appellant
v.
* JOANNE B. BARNHART,
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
*{Pursuant to Rule 43(c), F.R.A.P.}
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 01-cv-01695)
District Judge: Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 16, 2003
Before: ALITO, AMBRO and CHERTOFF, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed October 28, 2003)
OPINION
AMBRO, Circuit Judge
Cynthia Morris appeals the District Court judgment affirming the denial of supplemental
security income by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. At issue is whether
the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g),
1383(c)(3); Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 427 (3d Cir. 1999). Because we conclude that
decision is supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.
I.
Facts and Procedural History
Morris applied for supplemental security income in 1997, alleging that she was
disabled by a pain disorder, severe depression and anxiety. At that time, she was 41 years
old. An administrative law judge (“ALJ”) collected evidence at two hearings, and issued
a decision denying Morris’s application on March 25, 1999. In her decision, the ALJ
found that the record as a whole did not establish that Morris was disabled. The ALJ
found that medical evidence established that Morris had dysthemia and a somatoform
disorder, which were severe but which did not meet the criteria for any impairment
listings of the Social Security Administration regulations impairment listings because she
was not sufficiently restricted in the activities of daily living and social functioning. Next
the ALJ considered whether Morris’s non-listed, serious impairments prevented her from
performing past relevant work or any other work in the national economy. The ALJ
found that, as a result of Morris’s impairment, she was limited in, among other things, her
ability to stand, walk, and sit without interruption, and in the use of her left arm.
Consequently, the ALJ found that M orris did not have residual function capacity to
2
perform her past relevant work as a babysitter. Based on the testimony of a vocational
expert, the ALJ found that Morris did have the capacity to perform other jobs in the
national economy, including that of a tutor, toll collector, and parts assembler. The ALJ
also found that “the claimant’s statements concerning her impairments and their impact
on her ability to work are not entirely credible.” On these grounds, the ALJ denied
Morris’s application for supplemental security income. The Appeals Council of the
Social Security Administration declined further review, making the ALJ’s decision an
appealable final decision. Morris filed an action in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania seeking judicial review of the ALJ decision. On
December 30, 2002, Judge Rambo of the District Court entered an order adopting the
report of Magistrate Judge M annion and denying M orris’s appeal.
II.
Standard of Review
Although our review of the District Court’s order is plenary, “our review of the
ALJ’s decision is more deferential as we determine whether there is substantial evidence
to support the decision of the Commissioner.” Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 38 (3d
Cir. 2001) (quoting Knepp v. Apfel,
204 F.3d 78, 83 (3d Cir. 2000)). Substantial
evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate.”
Ventura v. Shalala,
55 F.3d 900, 901 (3d Cir. 1995). If the ALJ’s findings of fact are
supported by substantial evidence, we are bound by those findings, even if we would have
3
decided the factual inquiry differently. Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 360 (3d Cir.
1999). Thus the issue before us is whether the Commission’s decision that Morris was
not disabled, and thus not entitled to supplemental security income, is supported by
substantial evidence.
III.
The Disability Determinations Process
Eligible disabled individuals are entitled to benefits under Title XVI of the Social
Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1383f. See 42 U.S.C. § 1381a. “Disabled individuals”
are “unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically
determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or
which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve
months” and, because of this, are “unable to perform previous work . . . or any other work
which exists in the national economy.” Id. § 1382c(a)(3)(A), (B).
The Social Security Administration has established a five-step inquiry to determine
whether a claimant is eligible for benefits under the Act. A claimant must identify that:
(1) she is not engaged in substantially gainful activity; (2) she suffers from a severe
medical impairment; (3) her impairment is listed by the Administration as one creating a
presumption of disability; (4) if the impairment is not listed, that the impairment
nonetheless prevents her from doing her past relevant work. If the claimant satisfies this
burden, then the Commissioner must grant benefits unless she can demonstrate (5) that
4
there are jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform. 20 CFR § 416.920.
IV.
Analysis of Morris’s Arguments on Appeal
Morris argues on appeal that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence
because (1) the ALJ improperly discounted the opinion of her treating psychiatrist and (2) the
ALJ improperly discounted those portions of the consulting physician’s opinion that were based
on Morris’s subjective complaints. We analyze each of these arguments and conclude that they
are both unpersuasive.
A. The ALJ Properly Considered Morris’s Treating Psychiatrist’s Opinion
On appeal, Morris argues that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence
because the ALJ failed to give proper consideration to the opinion of her treating psychiatrist, Dr.
Grossman. Dr. Grossman assigned Morris a Global Assessment of Functioning (“GAF”) score
of 40, indicating “major impairment in several areas such as work or school, family relations,
judgment, thinking, or mood.” Morris argues that, if given proper weight, this evidence
would have established that she satisfied the requirements for a listed Affective Disorder,
thus ending the inquiry at step 3. We disagree.
To satisfy the criteria for an Affective Disorder or a Somatoform Disorder, Morris
must satisfy the criteria set forth on both part A and part B of each respective listing. 20
C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, §§ 12.04, 12.07. Part B of both §§ 12.04 and 12.07
require that a claimaint’s impairments (the existence of which are not in dispute in this
case) result in at least two of the following:
5
1. Marked restriction of activities of daily living; or
2. Marked difficulties in maintaining social functioning; or
3. Deficiencies of concentration, persistence or pace resulting in frequent
failure to complete tasks in a timely manner (in work settings or
elsewhere); or
4. Repeated episodes of deterioration or decompensation in work or work-
like settings which cause the individual to withdraw from that
situation or to experience exacerbation.
20 CFR pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, Listing 12.04 (1999). A marked limitation is one that seriously
interferes with a claimant’s ability to “function independently, appropriately, effectively, and on a
sustained basis.” 20 CFR pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1 § 12.00(C) (1999).
Morris argues that this opinion is entitled to controlling weight because Dr. Grossman is
her treating psychiatrist. Under the treating physician principle, a treating physician’s opinion
that is consistent with other substantial evidence should be afforded greater weight than other
medical opinions. 20 CFR § 416.927(d)(2); Mason v. Shalala, 994 F.2d 1058, 1067 (3d Cir.
1993). This is true especially when the treating physician’s opinion “reflect[s] expert judgment
based on a continuing observation of the patient’s condition over a prolonged time.” Morales v.
Apfel,
225 F.3d 310, 317 (3d Cir. 2000);
Plummer, 186 F.3d at 429; see also 20 CFR §
416.927(d)(2)(i) (1999) (“Generally, the longer a treating source has treated you and the more
times you have been seen by a treating source, the more weight we will give to the source’s
medical opinion.”). Dr. Grossman saw Morris on only three or four occasions over two or three
months (Appellant’s App. at 303), so his opinion does not reflect judgment based on “continuing
observation of the patient’s condition over a prolonged time.” Thus, contrary to Morris’s
argument, his opinion is not entitled to any presumption of controlling weight.
But even if it was binding on the ALJ, Dr. Grossman’s opinion is not dispositive of
6
Morris’s disability. He indicated Morris’s GAF score as “40-40.” Morris argues that this means
“40 at the time of the evaluation and 40 for the year prior to the evaluation.” (Appellant’s Br. at
6). But, as the District Court points out, according to the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (4th ed. 2000) (“DSM-IV”), GAF scores are reported with a parenthetical
notation of the time period reflected, such as “(current)” or “(highest level in the past year)” or
“(at discharge).” DSM-IV at 35. Because no such parenthetical notation appeared in Dr.
Grossman’s report, it was appropriate for the ALJ to determine that she could not infer that Dr.
Grossman was assigning Morris a GAF score of 40 for any twelve-month period. And as the
District Court noted, Dr. Grossman rendered his diagnosis after his first evaluation of Morris,
and thus could not have been providing an historical view of her level of functioning.
(Appellant’s Br. at 77).
Furthermore, to the extent that Grossman’s opinion is relevant to Morris’s ability to
function, it is inconsistent with other evidence in the record. Prior to Dr. Grossman’s evaluation,
Dr. Buenaventura, Morris’s long-term treating psychiatrist ) assigned Morris a GAF score of 60,
which indicates only moderate functional limitations. Also, the Administration’s consulting
physician, Dr. Picciotto, found that Morris has moderate limitations on activities of daily living
due to fatigue and pain, but that she was able to carry out instructions, get along with others,
perform activities within a schedule, and make decisions.
Morris argues that Dr. Grossman’s opinion is consistent with that of Dr. Harig, a
psychologist who reported Morris’s responses to the Beck Depression Inventory indicated major
depression in the severe range. While relevant to the conclusion that Morris has a serious
impairment, this evidence does not indicate the extent to which her depression restricts her life
7
activities as Dr. Grossman’s opinion does. Because it does not corroborate Dr. Grossman’s
opinion, the ALJ properly factored Dr. Harig’s opinion into her conclusion that Dr. Grossman’s
opinion is inconsistent with the other medical evidence in the record.
Because Dr. Grossman’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, is not dispositive of
a listed impairment, and is not inconsistent with other medical evidence in the record, we find
that the ALJ gave it proper weight.
B. The ALJ properly discounted medical evidence based on subjective
complaints.
Morris next argues that ALJ erred in discounting the opinion of a consulting physician,
Dr. Picciotto, who, based on Morris’s subjective complaints, concluded that she would have
difficulty sustaining work activity. Again we disagree.
“[T]he extent to which an individual’s statements about symptoms can be relied upon as
probative evidence in determining whether the individual is disabled depends on the credibility
of those statements.” Social Security Ruling 96-7. Here the ALJ found that Morris was “less
than credible” and thus assigned limited weight to those aspects of Dr. Picciotto’s opinion that
were based on Morris’s subjective complaints. The District Court found that the ALJ’s
credibility finding was supported by the fact that other doctors’ opinions, all part of the
administrative record, demonstrated that “the plaintiff sought referrals from doctor after doctor,
and when it became clear to her that a particular doctor was not going to cooperate in her quest
for a statement that she was disabled, she moved on to the next doctor.” (Appellant’s Br. at 83).
Morris does not challenge the ALJ’s underlying credibility finding. Rather, she argues
that Dr. Picciotto’s medical opinion cannot be discounted because it is based on her subjective
8
complaints. In support, she cites Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 726 (9th Cir. 1998), in which
the Ninth Circuit determined that the ALJ inappropriately rejected the opinions of treating and
consulting physicians on the premise that they were based on the claimant’s subjective
complaints. But highly relevant to the Reddick court was the fact chronic fatigue syndrome, by
definition a “self-reported” impairment, was at issue.
Id. at 726; see also
id. at 725 (concluding
that the ALJ’s rejection of the physicians’ opinions on the premise that they were based on the
claimant’s subjective complaints “is ill-suited to this CFS case” (emphasis added)). In this
context, Reddick is inapplicable to Morris’s case.
Furthermore, the mere memorialization of a claimant’s subjective statements in a medical
report does not elevate those statements to a medical opinion. Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 590
n.2 (4th Cir. 1996). An ALJ may discredit a physician’s opinion on disability that was premised
largely on the claimant’s own accounts of her symptoms and limitations when the claimant’s
complaints are properly discounted. Fair v. Bowen,
885 F.2d 597, 605 (9th Cir. 1989) (“The ALJ
thus disregarded Dr. Bliss’ opinion because it was premised on Fair’s own subjective complaints,
which the ALJ had already properly discounted. This constitutes a specific, legitimate reason for
rejecting the opinion of a treating physician.”). Thus we find that the ALJ properly discounted
those aspects of Dr. Picciotto’s opinion that were based on Morris’s subjective complaints.
V.
Conclusion
For these reasons, we find that the Commission’s decision was supported by substantial
evidence in the record and affirm the District Court’s opinion.
9
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing Opinion.
By the Court,
/s/ Thomas L. Ambro, Circuit Judge
10
11
