Crouse v. SSA, No. 6:2009cv00344 - Document 12 (E.D. Ky. 2010)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court finds that the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record. It is HEREBY ORDERED that the Plff's Motion for Summary Judgment be OVERRULED; Dft's Motion for Summary Judgment be SUSTAINED. Judgment in favor of the Dft will be entered contemporaneously herewith. Signed by Judge Henry R. Wilhoit, Jr on 6/22/2010.(RC)cc: COR Modified file date on 6/23/2010 (RC).

Download PDF

Eastern District of Kentucky UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION at LONDON FILED JUN 23 20tO At Ashland LESLIE G. WHITMER Clerk, U.S. District Court Civil Action No. 09-344-HRW RICKY CROUSE, PLAINTIFF, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER v. 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 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 protectively filed an application for supplemental security income benefits on January 16,2007, alleging disability beginning on September 1, 1989, due to bipolar and other mental problems, diabetes, high blood pressure and panic attacks (Tr. 54, 105). This application was denied initially and on reconsideration. On November 5,2008, an administrative hearing was conducted by Administrative Law Judge Donald Rising (hereinafter "ALJ"), wherein Plaintiff, accompanied by counsel, testified. At the hearing, James H. Miller, 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 I: 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 I, 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 March 30, 2009, the ALJ issued his decision finding that Plaintiff was not disabled (Tr. 13-24). Plaintiff was 44 years old at the time of his application. He has at least a high school education and past relevant work experience (Tr. 23). At Step 1 of the sequential analysis, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the application date (Tr.15). The ALJ then determined, at Step 2, that Plaintiff suffers from hypertension, diabetes, affective disorder and anti-social personality disorder, which he found to be "severe" within the meaning of the Regulations (Tr. 15-20). At Step 3, the ALJ found that Plaintiffs impairments did not meet or medically equal any of the listed impairments (Tr. 20-21). The ALJ then determined that Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform medium work with certain limitations as set forth in the hearing decision (Tr. 21-23). The ALJ finally concluded that these jobs exist in significant numbers in the national and regional economies, as identified by the VE (Tr. 24). Accordingly, the ALJ found Plaintiff not to be disabled at Step 5 of the sequential evaluation process. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiffs request for review and adopted the ALl's decision as the final decision of the Commissioner on August 27, 2009 (Tr. 3 2-4). Plaintiff thereafter filed this civil action seeking a reversal of the Commissioner's decision. Both parties have filed Motions for Summary Judgment [Docket Nos. 10 and 11] and this matter is ripe for decision. III. ANALYSIS A. Standard of Review The essential issue on appeal to this Court is whether the ALJ'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 (6 th 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 (6 th Cir. 1988). Finally, this Court must defer to the Commissioner's decision "even if there is substantial evidence in the record that would have supported an opposite conclusion, so long as substantial evidence 4 supports the conclusion reached by the ALJ. II Key v. Callahan, 109 F.3d 270,273 (6th Cir.1997). B. Plaintiff's Contentions on Appeal Plaintiff contends that the ALl's finding of no disability is erroneous because: (1) the ALJ improperly rejected the opinion ofVassili Arkadiev, M.D. and (2) the ALJ did not consider the combined effect of his impairments .. C. Analysis of Contentions on Appeal Plaintiffs first claim of error is that the ALJ improperly rej ected the opinion ofVassili Arkadiev, M.D. Dr. Arkadiev has suggested severe limitations in Plaintiff s mental functioning. The weight afforded to a physician's opinion turns upon the duration of his or her relationship with the claimant, the evidence the physician presents in support of the opinion and the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.927 (d). The record establishes that Dr. Arkadiev saw Plaintiff on only two occasions, in January and May of 2008. Therefore, the ALJ correctly found that he is not to be considered a treating source. Further, Dr. Arkadiev's notes reveal no objective medical findings which would lend support to the extreme limitations suggested by him. Indeed, there are 5 no objective findings in the record as a whole which would form a basis for this OpInIOn. Moreover, the only treatment suggested by Dr. Arkadiev is conservative. There are no recommendations of inpatient treatment. Finally, Dr. Arkadiev's opinion is inconsistent with the other medical opinions and findings of record. Indeed, the bulk of the medical evidence reflects minimal findings are in accord with the limitations set forth in the ALl's RFC. The Court having reviewed the record finds no error in the ALl's consideration and rejection of Dr. Arkadiev's opinion. Plaintiff s second claim of error is that the ALl did not consider the combined effect of his impairments. A review of the decision clearly shows that the ALl considered Plaintiffs impairments as a while in rendering his findings. Such articulations have been found to be sufficient upon review. See Gooch v. Secretary ofHealth and Human Services, 833 F.2d 589, 592 (6 th Cir. 1987). Indeed, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stated in Loy v. Secretary ofHealth and Human Services, "[a]n ALl's individual discussion of multiple impairments does not imply that he failed to consider the effect of the impairments in combination, where the ALl specifically refers to a 'combination of impairments' in finding that the plaintiff does not meet 6 the listings." Loy v. Secretary a/Health and Human Services, 901 F.2d 1306, 131 0 (6 th Cir. 1990). The Court finds that the ALI's approach in this case passes Gooch and Loy muster and that Plaintiff s argument in this regard is without merit. III. CONCLUSION The Court finds that the ALI'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. This 1./1/ day of June, 2010. He~Jr.' 7 Senior Judge

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.