Filed: Aug. 20, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 20, 2019
Summary: ORDER ON SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL JEREMY D. PETERSON , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on claimant's request for judicial review of an unfavorable decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration regarding his application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. At a hearing on August 20, 2019, the court heard argument from the parties. Having reviewed the record, administrative transcript, briefs of the parties, and applicable law—and
Summary: ORDER ON SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL JEREMY D. PETERSON , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on claimant's request for judicial review of an unfavorable decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration regarding his application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. At a hearing on August 20, 2019, the court heard argument from the parties. Having reviewed the record, administrative transcript, briefs of the parties, and applicable law—and ..
More
ORDER ON SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL
JEREMY D. PETERSON, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on claimant's request for judicial review of an unfavorable decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration regarding his application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. At a hearing on August 20, 2019, the court heard argument from the parties. Having reviewed the record, administrative transcript, briefs of the parties, and applicable law—and having considered arguments made at the hearing— I find that the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record and is free of reversible legal error.
Claimant first argues that remand is appropriate because the ALJ inappropriately discounted the opinion of treating physician Alan Inocentes, whose opinion the ALJ accorded "[s]ome weight." AR 26. In justifying this discounting of Dr. Inocentes' opinion, the ALJ cited claimant's hearing testimony that he could lift "probably not more than about 10 or 15 pounds." AR 46. The ALJ found that this statement undercut Dr. Inocentes' conclusion that "[i]n an average 8 hour workday," claimant can never lift ten pounds or more and can lift weights under ten pounds only rarely. While this conflict is far from glaring, it is the prerogative of the ALJ to evaluate the extent and significance of conflicts between statements.1 The ALJ's decision here was supported by substantial evidence.
Second, claimant argues that remand is appropriate because the ALJ erred in finding that claimant can perform his past work as a dispatcher either as actually performed or as generally performed. The Commissioner concedes that the ALJ erred in finding that claimant can perform this work as actually performed, but argues that this error was harmless since claimant can do the work as generally performed. I agree.
For the reasons stated in this order and on the record at oral argument, we deny claimant's appeal from the administrative decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant and against claimant Benjamin David Parsons. The clerk of the court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
