Lainhart v. SSA, No. 5:2010cv00015 - Document 13 (E.D. Ky. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: It is ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be OVERRULED and the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be SUSTAINED. A judgment in favor of the Defendant will be entered contemporaneously herewith. Signed by Judge Henry R. Wilhoit, Jr on 11/22/2010.(LGM)cc: COR
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lainhart v. SSA Doc. 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON Civil Action No. lO-15-HRW GREGORY LAINHART, v. PLAINTIFF, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MICHAEL J. ASTRUE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT. Plaintiff has brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §405(g) to challenge a final decision of the Defendant denying Plaintiffs application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits. The Court having reviewed the record in this case and the dispositive motions filed by the parties, and being otherwise sufficiently advised, for the reasons set forth herein, finds that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge is supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff filed his current application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits on August 21, 2006, alleging disability beginning on July 21, 2006, due to low back and neck pain, chronic bronchitis and depression. This application was denied initially and on reconsideration. On Dockets.Justia.com October 30,2007, an administrative hearing was conducted by Administrative Law Judge Don C. Paris (hereinafter "ALJ"), wherein Plaintiff, accompanied by counsel, testified. At the hearing, Linda Taber, a vocational expert (hereinafter "VE"), also testified. At the hearing, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.920, the ALJ performed the following five-step sequential analysis in order to determine whether the Plaintiff was disabled: Step 1: If the claimant is performing substantial gainful work, he is not disabled. Step 2: If the claimant is not performing substantial gainful work, his impairment(s) must be severe before he can be found to be disabled based upon the requirements in 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(b). Step 3: If the claimant is not performing substantial gainful work and has a severe impairment (or impairments) that has lasted or is expected to last for a continuous period of at least twelve months, and his impairments (or impairments) meets or medically equals a listed impairment contained in Appendix 1, Subpart P, Regulation No.4, the claimant is disabled without further inquiry. Step 4: If the claimant's impairment (or impairments) does not prevent him from doing his past relevant work, he is not disabled. Step 5: Even if the claimant's impairment or impairments prevent him from performing his past relevant work, if other work exists in significant numbers in the national economy that accommodates his residual functional capacity and vocational factors, he is not disabled. 2 On Apri122, 2008, the ALl issued his decision finding that Plaintiff was not disabled. At Step 1 of the sequential analysis, the ALl found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date of disability (Tr. 14). The ALl then determined, at Step 2, that Plaintiff suffers from lumbar degenerative disc disease with chronic low back pain, chronic neck pain, chronic bronchitis depression and polysubstance abuse / dependence, which he found to be "severe" within the meaning of the Regulations (Tr. 14-15). At Step 3, the ALl found that Plaintiff's impairments did not meet or medically equal any of the listed impairments (Tr. 15-16). The ALl further found that Plaintiff could return to his past relevant work as a circuit board assembler (Tr. 19) and further determined that he has the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform a range of light work (Tr. 16-19). The ALl finally concluded that these jobs exist in significant numbers in the national and regional economies, as identified by the VB (Tr. 19). Accordingly, the ALl found Plaintiff not to be disabled at Steps 4 and 5 of the sequential evaluation process. 3 The Appeals Council denied Plaintiffs request for review and adopted the ALI's decision as the final decision of the Commissioner on December 8, 2009 (Tr. 1-6). Plaintiff thereafter filed this civil action seeking a reversal of the Commissioner's decision. Both parties have filed Motions for Summary Judgment [Docket Nos. 9 and 12] and this matter is ripe for decision. III. ANALYSIS The essential issue on appeal to this Court is whether the ALI's decision is supported by substantial evidence. "Substantial evidence" is defined as "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion;" it is based on the record as a whole and must take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight. Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383,387 (6th Cir. 1984). If the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence, the reviewing Court must affirm. Kirk v. Secretary ofHealth and Human Services, 667 F.2d 524,535 (6th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 957 (1983). "The court may not try the case de novo nor resolve conflicts in evidence, nor decide questions of credibility." Bradley v. Secretary ofHealth and Human Services, 862 F.2d 1224, 1228 (6th Cir. 1988). Finally, this Court must defer to the Commissioner's decision "even if there is substantial evidence in the record that 4 would have supported an opposite conclusion, so long as substantial evidence supports the conclusion reached by the ALI." Key v. Callahan, 109 F.3d 270,273 (6th Cir.1997). Plaintiff challenges the ALI's consideration of various medical sources. First, with regard to the opinions of Plaintiff s chiropractors, Eric Baldwin and Brenda Huser-Taylor, they were properly discounted by the ALI as chiropractors are not deemed an acceptable source of medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §404.1513(a). The opinion of Plaintiffs treating physician, Dr. D.T. Chung, was, contrary to Plaintiffs assertion, given great weight by the ALI and incorporated into the RFC. Plaintiff also contends that the ALI did not consider the combined effect of his impairments. A review of the hearing decision reveals that the ALI considered Plaintiffs impairments in combination at various stages in his evaluation. The ALI discussed Plaintiffs impairments, both physical and mental, both severe and non-severe, at Step 3 of the sequential evaluation process, and specified that he considered the same, alone and "in combination" (Tr. 15). Such articulations have been found to be sufficient upon review. See Gooch v. Secretary ofHealth and Human Services, 833 F.2d 589,592 (6th Cir. 1987). Indeed, the Sixth Circuit 5 Court of Appeals stated in Loy v. Secretary ofHealth and Human Services, "[a]n ALJ's individual discussion of multiple impairments does not imply that he failed to consider the effect of the impairments in combination, where the ALJ specifically refers to a 'combination of impairments' in finding that the plaintiff does not meet the listings." Loy v. Secretary ofHealth and Human Services, 901 F.2d 1306, 1310 (6 th Cir. 1990). The Court finds that the ALJ's approach in this case passes Gooch and Loy muster and that Plaintiff's argument in this regard is without merit. Plaintiff further insists that his impairments meet the requirements for listed disabilities under 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, Listings, 1.04. Listing 1.04 refers generally to disorders of the spine. Listing 1.04A refers to evidence of nerve root compression characterized by specific clinical findings; Listing 1.04 B refers to spinal arachnoiditis, confirmed by an operative note or tissue biopsy, and Listing 1.04C refers to lumbar spinal stenosis that results in certain findings on diagnostic imaging techniques and certain specified physical limitations. In order to meet or equal the requirements of a listed impairment, a claimant must demonstrate specific findings that duplicate the enumerated criteria of the listed impairment. This equivalency must be based on medical evidence supported 6 by acceptable clinical and diagnostic techniques. Land v. Sec'y ofHealth and Human Svcs., 814 F.2d 241,245 (6th Cir.1986). In order for a claimant's condition to equate with a listed impairment, the claimant's condition must manifest all of the specified medical criteria for such impairment. Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521,530,110 S.Ct. 885,107 L.Ed.2d 967 (1990) ("An impairment that manifests only some of the criteria, no matter how severe, does not qualify."). Listing 1.04 provides, in pertinent part: 1.04 Disorders of the spine (e.g., herniated nucleus pulposus, spinal arachnoiditis, spinal stenosis, osteoarthritis, degenerative disc disease, facet arthritis, vertebral fracture), resulting in compromise of a nerve root (including the cauda equina) or the spinal cord. With: A. Evidence of nerve root compression characterized by neuroanatomic distribution of pain, limitation of motion of the spine, motor loss (atrophy with associated muscle weakness or muscle weakness) accompanied by sensory or reflex loss and, if there is involvement of the lower back, positive straight-leg raising test (sitting and supine); or B. Spinal arachnoiditis, confirmed by an operative note or pathology report of tissue biopsy, or by appropriate medically acceptable imaging, manifested by severe burning or painful dysesthesia, resulting in the need for changes in position or posture more than once every 2 hours; or C. Lumbar spinal stenosis resulting in pseudoclaudication, established by findings on appropriate medically acceptable imaging, manifested by 7 chronic nonradicular pain and weakness, and resulting in inability to ambulate effectively, as defined in 1.00B2b. 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, supt. P, App. 1 §1.04. Plaintiff has not pointed to evidence in the record which satisfies the listing. None of the physicians of records have suggested findings consistent with this Listing. As such, the Court finds no error in this regard. Finally, Plaintiff submitted hundreds of pages of evidence to the Appeals Council in support of his claim of disability. Sentence six of 42 U.S.C. §405(g) provides: The court ... may at any time order additional evidence be taken before the Commissioner of Social Security, but only upon a showing that there is new evidence which is material and that there is good cause for the failure to incorporate such evidence into the record in a prior proceeding. 42 U.S.C. §405(g). However, the limited circumstances under which remands are permitted arise when the party seeking remand shows that: (1) there is new, non-cumulative evidence: (2) the evidence is "material" - i.e., both relevant and probative, so that there is a reasonable possibility that it would change the administrative result; and, (3) there is good cause for failure to submit the evidence at the administrative level. Willis v. Secretary ofHealth and Human 8 Services, 727 F.2d 551,554 (6th • Cir. 1984). While it is not, generally, difficult for a party seeking remand to show that evidence is new, it is, generally, onerous to demonstrate that the new evidence is material. In the instant case, Plaintiff has wholly failed to show that the new evidence is material. Indeed, the evidence, pertains to a time period outside the scope of this application. Therefore, it is considered material and, thus, a basis for remand. III. CONCLUSION The Court finds that the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be OVERRULED and the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be SUSTAINED. A judgment in favor of the Defendant will be entered contemporaneously herewith. Henry R. Wilhoit, Jr., Senior Judge 9
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
