LANDYA McCAFFERTY, District Judge.
Sheila Holland seeks judicial review of the decision of the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, denying in part her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental social security income. Holland moves to reverse the Acting Commissioner's decision, and the Acting Commissioner moves to affirm. For the reasons discussed below, the court grants the Acting Commissioner's motion to affirm and denies Holland's motion to reverse.
In reviewing the final decision of the Acting Commissioner in a social security case, the court "is limited to determining whether the [Administrative Law Judge] deployed the proper legal standards and found facts upon the proper quantum of evidence."
In determining whether a claimant is disabled, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") follows a five-step sequential analysis. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4) & 416.920(a)(4).
At the fourth step of the sequential analysis, the ALJ assesses the claimant's residual functional capacity ("RFC"), which is a determination of the most a person can do in a work setting despite her limitations caused by impairments,
A detailed statement of the facts can be found in the parties' Joint Statement of Material Facts (doc. no. 12). The court provides a brief summary of the case here.
On September 17, 2013, Holland filed an application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental social security income, alleging a disability onset date of May 2, 2013, when she was 51 years old. After Holland's claim was denied at the initial level, she requested a hearing in front of an ALJ. On February 24, 2015, the ALJ held a hearing, and he denied Holland's claim for benefits in a written decision dated March 20, 2015. On May 20, 2016, the Appeals Council denied Holland's request for review, making the ALJ's decision the Acting Commissioner's final decision. Holland brought an action in federal court challenging that decision (the "federal court action").
On July 7, 2016, while the federal court action was pending, Holland filed another claim for social security benefits. This second claim was based, in part, on Holland approaching her 55th birthday, a milestone which when reached would put Holland in the "advanced age" category under the social security regulations.
Holland's second claim for benefits was approved at the initial level. She was awarded benefits effective November 13, 2016, the day before her 55th birthday.
On May 7, 2017, upon an assented-to motion by the Acting Commissioner, the district court remanded the federal court action, which pertained to Holland's first claim for benefits, to the Acting Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. The Appeals Council subsequently vacated the Acting Commissioner's decision and remanded the case to the ALJ.
The Appeals Council directed the ALJ to resolve two issues. First, the Appeals Council stated that the rationale for discounting the opinion of Holland's treating physician, Dr. Douglas Taylor, was inadequate.
On September 28, 2017, the ALJ held a hearing on Holland's consolidated claims. Holland, who was represented by an attorney, appeared and testified. Two non-examining impartial medical experts, Drs. Chukwuemeka Efobi and Peter Schosheim, and a vocational expert, Christine Spaulding, also appeared and testified.
On November 15, 2017, the ALJ issued a partially favorable decision. He agreed with the finding at the initial level that Holland was disabled and entitled to benefits as of November 13, 2016. The ALJ found that Holland was not disabled prior to that date.
The ALJ found that Holland had the residual functional capacity to perform
Admin. Rec. at 618. In assessing Holland's RFC, the ALJ considered Holland's testimony as to her activities of daily living and symptoms, as well as her medical records and the medical opinion evidence.
As directed by the Appeals Council, the ALJ reassessed the opinion evidence of Holland's treating physician, Dr. Taylor.
Relying on the vocational expert's testimony, the ALJ found at Step Five that Holland was capable of performing jobs that exist in the national economy, including usher and ticket taker. The ALJ concluded that, therefore, Holland was not disabled from her alleged onset date through November 12, 2016.
The Appeals Council denied Holland's request for review, making the ALJ's decision the Acting Commissioner's final decision. This action followed.
Holland contends that the ALJ erred in his evaluation of the medical opinion evidence. She also argues that the ALJ improperly discounted her subjective complaints. As a result, Holland contends, the record lacks substantial evidence to support the ALJ's RFC assessment. The Acting Commissioner argues that the ALJ properly weighed and considered the opinion evidence and Holland's complaints.
Holland contends that the ALJ erred in his evaluation of several medical opinions in the record. Specifically, she argues that the ALJ erroneously gave "less than great weight" to Dr. Taylor's opinions and little weight to the opinion of Gregg Rogers, APRN. She also contends that the ALJ erred in giving great weight to the opinions of Dr. Schosheim, an impartial medical expert, and Dr. Peter Loeser, a consultative examiner.
"An ALJ is required to consider opinions along with all other relevant evidence in a claimant's record."
A treating medical source's opinion about the claimant's impairment will be given controlling weight if it "is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record." § 404.1527(c)(2). An ALJ must give "good reasons" for the weight given to a treating source's medical opinion.
The ALJ addressed Dr. Taylor's February 5, 2015 and September 25, 2017 opinions. He noted that the 2015 opinion was limited to an evaluation of Holland's right upper extremity only and it stated that Holland was limited to rarely lifting or carrying less than 10 pounds with her right arm. The ALJ noted that in the 2017 opinion, however, Dr. Taylor did not include the same limitation with respect to Holland's ability to lift or carry with her right arm. Instead, Dr. Taylor wrote "not applicable" next to the box corresponding to that limitation.
The ALJ gave Dr. Taylor's opinion less than great weight because Dr. Taylor declined "to provide a function-by-function assessment of [Holland's] ability to use her right upper extremity, and his first opinion is inconsistent with his second opinion."
Holland takes issue with each of the ALJ's reasons for giving Dr. Taylor's opinions less than great weight. For example, Holland argues that Dr. Taylor's second opinion was not inconsistent with his first opinion. Instead, she contends that the ALJ misinterpreted Dr. Taylor's statement in his second opinion of "not applicable" as to the limitation of Holland rarely lifting/carrying less than 10 pounds with her right arm. Although the ALJ read that statement as Dr. Taylor offering an opinion that Holland no longer had that limitation, she argues that the ALJ should have interpreted the statement as Dr. Taylor affirming, but declining to elaborate on, his first opinion. She further argues that Dr. Taylor's first opinion was not conclusory because it was based on his treatment history with Holland and her various ailments.
Holland's arguments are unpersuasive. Unlike the ALJ's first decision, in which he discounted Dr. Taylor's 2015 opinion simply because Dr. Taylor did not provide a full assessment of Holland's overall abilities and limitations,
Here, the ALJ gave "good reasons" which could be accepted by a reasonable mind for the weight given to Dr. Taylor's opinions.
Nurse Rogers completed a medical source statement dated September 21, 2017. In his statement, Rogers opined that Holland was limited to sitting for about two hours and standing/walking for less than two hours in an eight-hour workday. He also opined that Holland would be limited to lifting/carrying less than 10 pounds occasionally, and would have limitations in handling, fingering, and reaching. Rogers stated that Holland would be unable to handle even low-stress jobs.
The ALJ gave Rogers's opinion little weight. Holland argues that the ALJ erred in his evaluation of Rogers's opinion because the ALJ "does not state any clear reason" to discount the opinion. Doc. no. 7-1 at 12. To the contrary, however, the ALJ gave several reasons in support of the weight he gave to Rogers's opinion.
The ALJ noted, as a nurse practitioner, Rogers is not an acceptable medical source and therefore could not offer a medical opinion under § 404.1527(a).
Regardless, even if Rogers were an acceptable medical source, the ALJ properly addressed his opinion and gave adequate reasons for affording it little weight. The ALJ noted that the opinion was based, in part, on Rogers's examination of Holland after the period relevant to the determination of disability and that it included limitations due to Holland's recently diagnosed colon cancer, which was not relevant to her claim for disability. The ALJ also found Rogers's opinion to be "overstated" and without any evidence to support the limitations he found—specifically the limitation as to Holland's ability to lift and carry. Finally, the ALJ explained that Rogers's opinion, which imposed limitations that would result in Holland being limited to less than sedentary work, was inconsistent with other medical opinion evidence in the record, and he specifically referenced testimony by an impartial medical expert, Dr. Schosheim, who directly addressed Rogers's opinion.
Although Holland categorizes the ALJ's reasons to discount Rogers's opinion as "entirely speculative" and urges the court to draw certain inferences from the record, the court sees no error in the ALJ's evaluation of the opinion. Therefore, Holland's challenge regarding Rogers's opinion is without merit.
The ALJ gave great weight to the opinion of Dr. Schosheim, an impartial medical expert who testified at the hearing. Dr. Schosheim opined that Holland had functional limitations consistent with those included in the ALJ's RFC assessment. The ALJ found that Dr. Schosheim's opinion was entitled to great weight because he was able to review and address all of the medical records in the evidence through the day of the hearing as well as Holland's testimony at the hearing; his opinion was consistent with other medical opinions in the record; he supported his opinion with specific citations to the evidence of record and clinical findings; and his opinion was consistent with Holland's testimony as to her activities of daily living.
Holland contends that the ALJ erred in giving great weight to Dr. Schosheim's opinion because the opinion did not directly address Dr. Taylor's opinion. That argument is unpersuasive. Although an ALJ is required to consider every medical opinion in the record, Holland offers no support for her theory that a medical expert must specifically address every other medical opinion in the record. The ALJ determined that Dr. Taylor's opinion was entitled to less than great weight and, as discussed above, it is the ALJ's job to resolve conflicts in the evidence. Holland does not point to any error in the ALJ's evaluation of Dr. Schosheim's opinion.
The ALJ also gave great weight the opinion of Dr. Loeser, who conducted a physical exam of Holland in November 2016. Dr. Loeser opined that Holland had persistent pain in her right shoulder which would cause limited range of motion. The ALJ noted that although Dr. Loeser did not provide a function-by-function assessment of Holland's ability to perform work-related activities, his opinion as to Holland's limited range of motion was consistent with Holland's treatment records. Therefore, the ALJ gave great weight to Dr. Loeser's opinion and it was "reflected in the limitations noted above for [Holland's] residual functional capacity assessment." Admin. Rec. at 624.
Holland challenges the ALJ's evaluation of Dr. Loeser's opinion. The court need not address Holland's specific arguments, however, because even if the ALJ erred in giving Dr. Loeser's opinion great weight, that error is harmless. In giving Dr. Loeser's opinion great weight and incorporating the limitations contained therein, the ALJ assessed a
For these reasons, the ALJ did not err in evaluating the medical opinion evidence in the record.
The ALJ found that Holland's statements concerning her symptoms were not fully supported by the record. Holland contends that the ALJ erred in evaluating her subjective complaints.
Social Security Ruling ("SSR") 16-3p provides guidance to ALJs when they assess claimants' "symptoms, including pain, under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3)."
The ALJ found that Holland's statements concerning the persistence and intensity of her symptoms were inconsistent with the objective medical evidence, treatment notes in the record, and her level of daily activity. In her motion, Holland attempts to address some of the inconsistencies by offering benign explanations, none of which finds support in the record evidence.
Holland also criticizes the ALJ for stating that her subjective complaints were inconsistent with her failure to follow her doctor's recommendations to undergo physical therapy and with a gap in her treatment records. Holland contends that this contravenes SSR 16-3p's directive that an ALJ may not find a claimant's symptoms inconsistent with her failure to seek treatment "without considering possible reasons he or she may not comply with treatment or seek treatment consistent with the degree of his or her complaints." SSR 16-3p, 82 Fed. Reg. 49462, 49462-03 (Oct. 25, 2017). Holland, however, fails to offer
For these reasons, Holland's arguments concerning the ALJ's evaluation of her subjective complaints do not require reversal. Therefore, the court denies Holland's motion to reverse and grants the Acting Commissioner's motion to affirm.
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff's motion to reverse (doc. no. 7) is denied, and the Acting Commissioner's motion to affirm (doc. no. 10) is granted. The clerk of court shall enter judgment in accordance with this order and close the case.
SO ORDERED.
