MACK v. COLVIN, No. 1:2016cv00090 - Document 19 (M.D.N.C. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER, signed on 11/29/2016. The Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings 15 be DENIED, that Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings 17 be GRANTED, and that the final decision of the Commissioner be upheld. (Coyne, Michelle)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
MACK v. COLVIN Doc. 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA MRQUIT.{ LASHONE, MACK, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, V CAROLYN ìø. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. 1:16CV90 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff, Matquita Lashone Mack, seeks review of a fìnal decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying het claim for ("DIB') and a Pedod of Disability and Disability Insurance Benefìts Social Security Income ('SSI'). The Court has before it the certified administrative record and cross-motions for judgment. Q)ocket Entries 1.3, 15, 1,1.) Fot reasons discussed below, it is tecommended that Plaintiffls motion for judgment on the pleadings (Docket Enuy 15) be denied, Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Docket Etttty 17) be gtanted, and that the Commissioner's decision be upheld. I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff applied for DIB and SSI inJanuary December 27, 201.3, alleging a 2011. Çr. 260-69)t Her applications disability onset date of were denied initially and upon reconsidetation. (Tr. 85-88.) Thereaftet, Plaintiff requested a hearing de novo before an 1 Transcrþt citations refer to the sealed administrative record which was fi.led with Defendant's Answer. (Docket Entry 13.) 1 Dockets.Justia.com Adminisffative Law Judge ("ALJ"). Çr. 1,37.) Plaintiff, het attorney, expert ("VE") appeared at the hearing onJanuary and a vocational 7,2015. Qr.34-64.) At the hearing, the ALJ decided to order a consultative physical examination. (Tr. 51.) Plaintiff attended the consultative physical examination. (551.-62.) On July 27, 201,5, the ALJ held a second hearing. [t 33-52.) Plaintiff, her attorney, and another VE appeared at the second hearing. Qd.) A decision was issued on July 30, 2015, upholding the denial of Plaintiffs application fot DIB and SSI. Qr. 12-32) Or December 1.6, 201,5, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiffs request for review of the decision, thereby making the ,{LJ's determination the Commissioner's final decision for purposes of judicial review. [r. 1-6.) II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Commissionet held that Plaintiff was not under a disability within the meaning the Act. of Undet 42 U.S.C. $ a05e), the scope of judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision is specific and narow. Snith u. Schweiker,795 F.2d 343,345 (4th Cir. 1936). This Court's review of that decision is limited to determining whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Commissioner's decision. 42 U.S.C. $ a05G); Hunter u. Sulliuan, 993 F.2d 31, 34 (4th Cir. 1.992); Hay u. Sulliuan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1,456 (4th Cir. 1990). "Substantial evidence is 'such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."' Hanter,993 F.2d at 34 (cittng Wchardson 401, (1,971)). less than a u. Perales,402 U.S. 389, "[t] 'consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may be somewhat prepondetarrce."' 1/. (quotingl,aw The denial of benefìts will be reversed only u. Celebre7çe,368tr.2d640,642 (4th Cir. 1966)). if no reasonable mind could accept 2 the record as adequate to support the detetmination. Nchardson,402 U.S. at 401,. The issue before the Court, therefore, is not whether Plaintiff is disabled, but whethet the Commissioner's finding that Plaintiff is not disabled is suppotted by substanialevidence and was reached based upon a correct application of the relevant law. Cofnan u. Bowen,829 F.2d 514, 517 (4th Cir. 1,987). Thus, "lal claknant for disability benefits bears the burden of proving a disability," Ha// u. Harrh, ó58 F.2d 260,264 (4th Cir. 1981), and in this context, "disability" means rhe "'inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impaitment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous pedod of not less than 12 months l.]"' Id.(quoting 42 U.S.C. S 423(dX1XA)). Administtation "To rcgularize the adjudicative process, the Social Security has . promulgated . . . detailed regulations incorporating longstanding medical-vocational evaluation policies that take into account a claimant's age, education, and work experience in addition to fthe claimant's] medical condition." 1/. "These regulations r a claimant is disabled." Id. This sequential evaluation ptocess ("SEP") has up to five steps: "The claimnt (1) establish a 'sequential evaluation ptocess' to determine whethe (internal citations omitted). must not be engaged in 'substantial gainful activity,' i.e., cttttently working; and Q) must have a 'severe'impairment that (3) meets or exceeds the 'listings' of specified impairments, or is otherwise incapacitaing to the extent that the claimant does not possess the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to (4) perform [the claimant's] past work or (5) any other work." Albright u. Comm'rof Soe |ec.Admin.,1.74tr.3d473,475n.2 (4thCir. 1"999) (citing20 C.F.R. g a04.1520); J see abr 20 C.F.R. Ma¡tm u. S 416.920. The law concerning these five steps is well-established. See, e.!., Apfe|270 tr.3d 171,1,77-1,30 (4th Cu. 2001); Hall,658 F.2d at 264-65. III. THE ALJ'S DISCUSSION The ALJ followed the well-established five-step sequential analysis to ascertain whether Plaintiff is disabled, which is set foth in 20 C.F.R. n.2; see also 20 C.F.R. S S 404.1520. See Albright, 1,7 4 F.3d at 416.920. In rendering his disability determination, the ALJ made the following findings later adopted by Defendant: 1,. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31.,201,6, 2. 47 5 The claimant has not engage in substantial gainful activity since December 27 ,201.1, the alleged onset date Q0 CFR 404.1 571. et rcq., and 41.6.971 et xq.). 3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease; plantar fascütis; osteoarthritis of the knees; obesity; and depression (20 CFR 404.1,520(c) and 416.920 G). 4. The claimant does not have an impaitment or combination of impairments tht meets ot medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part404, Subpart P, Appendixl, Q0 CFR 404.1520(d), 404.1.525, 40 4. 1. 526, 41, 6.9 20 (d), 41, 69 25 and 41, 6.9 26) . 5. After careful consideration of the entire recotd, the undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform less than full t^nge of sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1 567 (a) and 416.967(a) in that she can occasionally lift, c try, push, and pull up to 10 pounds, ftequently ltft, carcy, push, and pull up to five pounds as well as stand/walk about two hours in an eight-hour workday and sit for about six 4 houts in an eight-hour workday. She would need to change from sitting to standing every 30 minutes for one to two minutes. The claimant required an assistive device for ptolonged ambulation and walking on uneven terain. She can occasionally operate foot controls. She can ftequently rcach overhead, reach in all other directions, handle, fìnger, and feel with both upper extremities. The claimant can never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds or balance. She can never be exposed to unprotected heights, moving mechanical parts, or operate a motor vehicle. The claimant can occasionally be exposed to weather. She can ftequently be exposed to humidity, wetness, dust, odors, fumes, pulmonary iritants, extreme cold, extreme heat, and vibrations. She is limited to petforming simple, routine, repetitive tasks, but not a production t^te p^ce (e.g. assembly-line work). The claimant can make simple work-related decisions when using her judgment and dealing with changes in the work setting. She can occasionally respond appropriately to supervisors, co-workers, and the public. Çt. 1'7, 20.) In light of the above findings tegarding Plaintiffs RFC, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was unable to perform her past relevant work as a housekeeper specialist/cleaner. Çr.25-26.) Based upon Plaintiffs age, education, work experience, and her RFC, the ALJ concluded "there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform." (Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. SS 404.1569, 404.1,569(a), 416.969, and 41,6.969(a)). Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled. [r.27.) IV. ANÁ,LYSIS Plaintiff argues that the ALJ "committed reversible error by according more weight to the opinions of a non-tre^ting consultative examiner and non-examining state agency psychological consultantthain to the claimant's treating A. Dr. Iftistin Ito and.A,my provider." (Docket Entry 1,6 at3.) Ford's Opinion Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ ered by not giving controlling weight to Plaintiffs treating 5 physician. (Docket Etttty 10 at 5-8.) PlaintifPs argument fails. The "treating physician rule," 20 C.F.R. S 404.1527 (r)Q), genetally ptovides more weight to the opinion of a treating source, because it may "provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [the claimant's] medical impairmentþ) [which] may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence . . . ." 20 C.F.R. S 404.1,527(.X2); ¡ee also 20 C.F.R. S 41,6.927(c)Q).2 An ALJ refusing to accord controlling weight to the medical opinion of a "factors" to determine how much weight to give C.F.R. S tteaang physician must consider various it. 20 C.F.R S 404.1527 (c)(2)-(6); ye øl¡o 20 416.927(c)(Z)-(6). These factots include: (i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (ü) the evidence in support of the treating physician's opinion; (üi) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other factors brought to the Social Security Administration's attention that tend 404J,527 (c)Q)-$); ¡ee also 20 C.F.R. to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R S S 4"t6.927 (c)(z)-(6). Significantly, as subsections (2) thtough (4) of the rule describe in great detail, a trearing source's opinion, like all medical opinions, must be both well-supported by medical signs and laboratory findings as well as consistent with the othet substantial evidence in the case record. 20 C.F.R S 404.1,527 (r)Q)-Ø); see al¡o 20 C.F.R. \ 41,6.927 (c)(2)-(4). "fIlf aphysician's opinion is not supported by clinical evidence or if it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, it 2 SSR 96-2p provides that "[c]ontrolling weight may not be given to a treattnE source's medical opinion unless the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques." SSR 96-2p, 1996 'ü7L 374188, at *1 $uly 2, 1996). However, where "a treating source's medical opinion is well-supported and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case tecord, it must be given controlling weight[.]" Id. 6 should be accotded significantly less weight." Craigu. Chater,76tr.3d 585, 590 (4th Cir. 1,996); accord Mastro,270 tr.3d at 1,78. Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to give the proper weight to the opinion signed by Amy F'ord, P,A,-C and Dt. ISistin Ito. (Docket Entry 't6 at statement was signed by Ms. Ford and Dt. Ito in F'ebruary 3-5.) A medical source 201,4. Qr. 440-41,.) The opinion states that Plaintiff could stand and sit for 15 minutes at a 'jme but that she could do neither for any length of time for an entire workday. (Ir. aa0.) It was also noted that Plaintiff could lift 10 pounds and occasionally bend, balance, raise her arms over her shoulder and tolerate heat, cold, dust, smoke, fumes and noise exposure. (Id.) stoop, work around dangerous machinery, or operate a motor vehicle. (Id.) It Plaintiff could never was also found that Plaintiff would need to frequently elevate her legs during an eight hour workday and use a cane to ambulate. Qd.) The ALJ gave parttal weight to this opinion, in part, because "it was . . . unclear as to who actually treated the claimant, the PA-C or the actual doctor." SSR 06-03P, only opinions weight. Çr.21,.) According to from "acceptable medical sources" may be entitled to contolling SSR 06-03p, 2006 WL 2329939, at *1 "Physician's assistants do not qualify ^s (,{,ug. 9, 2006) (internal citations omitted). àccept^ble medical sources undet the regulations; instead, they quali$r as other sources, who can offer evidence of impairments and their severity, but are not explicitly entitled to the enhanced evidentiary value enjoyed by treating sources." Clore u. Coluin, 27, 201.4), apþeal dismissed No. 2:13-CV-00023-FDìø, 2014 WL 294640, at*6 (Ií.D.N.C. Jan. Sune 4, 201,4) (unpublished) (intetnal citations and quotations 7 omitted). It is unclear from the record whether Plaintiff was treated by the physician's assistant or the physician herself because both individuals signed the opinion. Plaintiffs disability report indicates that Plaintiff was actually treated by Ms. Ford. Çr. 328.) However, in a reptesentative brief addressed to the ALJ, Plaintiffs attorney stated that Plaintiff was treated by Dr. Ito and that the opinion was hers. Gr. 353.) Courts have found that "where a physician's assistant has úeated a paaent under the supervision of physicians and renders an opinion based on the course and scope of such supervised treatment, the physician's assistant's opinion deserves the same weight as that of a tteating physician." S€e, e.g.,Argerh u. Coluin, No. 5:15-CY-264-B,C,201,6 ìrL 3951089,at*2 (E.D.N.C. July 18, 201'6) (unpublished). In other words, "if the facts of treatment show the primary caregiver is a non-acceptable medical source, such as a nurse practitioner, and a doctor adopts the fìndings and information about the patient and is engaged in the treatment, the nurse ptactitioner's evaluation becomes the report tecord that Dr. Ito signed the source statement as Dr. Ito's of the doctor." Id. It is clear from opinion. Qr. aa1,.) opinion. See Thus, the Court will treat the medical Argeris,201,6WL 3951089, at*2 (ftnding the ALJ erred in discounting the weight given to a questionnaire conducted by the physician's assistant because, although the opinion was completed by the physician's assistant, physician as well); Ra¡¡ell u. Coluin,No. 5:14-CV-00045, 2015 WL it was signed by the 4484891., at x7 flX/.D. Va. July 22, 201'5) (unpublished) (finding that although the plaintiff was mostly teated and examined by the physician's assistant and nutse, the physician "reviewed many . . . treatment notes and adopted them with his signatute on the date 8 of service" thereby, allowing the opinions to be considered üeating source opinions); Alexander BM, 2015 WL 2399846, at x6 @.S.C. l/.ay 1.9, 201,5) u. Coluin, No. 9:14-2194-MGL- (unpublished) (the ALJ failed to properly consider the physician's opinions as tteating source opinions because he believed that they were conducted by the physician assistant, when in fact the opinions "both cleady fcontained] the signature of fthe physician], in addition to that of fthe physician's assistant]'). Nevertheless, the ALJ also noted that "some opinion] ^ppeæ of the limitations given [in Dt. Ito's to be extreme considering fPlaintiffs] impairments and her treatment for such." Çr. 21'.) Thus, the A.LJ provided a vahd reason to discount Dr. Ito's opinion. Someruille u. Coluin, No. 1:12CV1360, 2015 \)7L 1,268258, at t3 (À4.D.N.C. }dar. 1,9, 201,5) (unpublished) (concluding that the ALJ's decision to give the physician's opinion less than conttolling weight was supported by substantial evidence because the physician's opinion was inconsistent with the conservative treatment given to the plaintiff which included injections, medication "hand splint, physical thetapy, and chirop tactot treatment') No. 4:13-CV-226-FL, 2014 WL 5871,348, ú ; see also Bright u. Coluìn, *10 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 12, 201,4) (unpublished) (fìnding that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's reasoning to give the plaintifPs reating physician less than controlling weight inpart because the physician's opinion was inconsistent with the conservative treatment the plaintiff received); Lacas 201,2WL 6917052, at x6 (E.D.N.C. Dec.28,201,2), reþort and u. Astrae, No. 5:12-CV-131-FL, recommendation adopted, No. 5:12- CV-131-FL, 201,3 WL 2391,95 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 22, 2013) (unpublished) ("The ALJ properly concluded that treatment notes and the prescribed course of treatment therein do not support fthe physician's] disability opinion."). 9 In addition, the ALJ noted that"on more than one occasion that. .. Plaintiff did not use any medications for her foot pain or her osteoarthritis." [r. 24, 37 4, 405.) The ALJ futhered stated that Plaintiff underwent several epidural steroid injections for her back, which she acknowledged helped for several months ^t ^ time. (Tr. 24, 530, 532, 534.) Additionally, the,{.LJ reasoned that even though Plaintiff indicated that her symptoms caused her pain on a daily basis, no surgery has evet been recommended by any of her 24) doctors. (Tt. The ALJ also noted that on multiple occasions, because of her age, she was told to diet and exercise to slow down the progression of some of her 511.) Additionally, the ALJ gave great weight impairments. (Id.; 472, 477 , 486, to the opinion of Dr. Jairon Downs. Dr. Downs determined that Plaintiff could occasionally lift and c^rry up to 10 pounds. She could walk between 30 minutes to an hour at one time. The claimant could sit for about eight hours during an eight-hour workday, stand for four hours and walk for two hours. She would need a cane to ambulate. The claimant could only ambulate about 50100 feet without the cane. She could use both hands to reach overhead, rcach in all other directions, handle, finger, and feel, but she could only use left hand occasionally for reaching ovethead. The claimant could occasionally use both feet to operate foot conttols. The claimant could occasionally climb stairs and tamps, stoopr kneel, crouch, and crawl, but never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds and balance. She could continuously be exposed to humidity, wetness, dust, odots, fumes, and pulmonary krttants, extreme cold, exffeme heat, and vibrations. The claimant could frequently be exposed to moving mechanical parts and operate a motor vehicle, but never be exposed to unprotected heights. She could perform all activities of daily living. Çr.22-23,556-61,.) Dr. Downs also concluded "that on clinical examination, the claimant had tenderness in the left shouldet, lumbar paraspinals, both medial malleoli andplantar aspect of both feet. She had an abnormal gait, but otherwise had no evidence of acute or chronic physical illness . . . ." Çr.22,554.) Plaintiffs 10 musculoskeletal examination revealed "intact ranges of motion and strengths, except in the left shoulder and lumbar spine. There was no measuted musculat asymmetry or atrophy, defìcits of motor, sensory or reflex functions the upper or lower exftemities." [r of 22, 554.) Plaintiff could "complete short distances in office without an assistive device, but used an assistive device (cane) for longer distances and balance [She] was able to sit, stand and walk unassisted as well as lift, carry and handle objects with both gross and fine manual motor dexterity." Qr.22,554.) The examination "showed no joint swelling, erythema, effusion, tendetness ot deformity, except tenderness in the plantar aspect of both feet, medial ankle bilatetally, tendet left anterior shoulder, and tender lumbat paraspinal muscles." Çt.22,553.) Plaintiff toes and her tandem walking was "was unable to walk on her heels and abnotmal." Qr. 22,553.) Plaintiff "was unable to squat and dse from that position with ease, but she was able to rise from a sitting position without assistance and only had mild difficulty getting up and down from the examination table." (Tt 22, 553.) Therefore, the ALJ's decision to give less than controlling weight to Dr. Ito's opinion is valid and supported by substantial evidence. B. Dr. I{ashefsky's Opinion Substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision to afford less than conrolling weight to Dr. I{ashefsky's opinion due to the inconsistencies between Dt. I(ashefsky's opinion and the conservative teatment Plaintiff received.3 Dr. I(ashefsky opined that Plaintiff could ¡ Plaintiff also contends that the ALJ "did not consider that Dr. Howard I(ashefsky is a specialist - a Doctor of Podiattic Medicine." (Docket E.rtry 16 at7.) Whether an opinion is fiom a specialist is a factor considered to determine the weight given to an opinion. 20 C.F.R S 404.1,527(c); see also20 C.F.R. $ 416.927(c). "The ALJ is not requited, however, to discuss all of the factors in 20 C.F.R. S 404.1527 when considering a medical opinion." See lf,/alter¡ u. Coluin, No. 7:14-CV-280-FL, 2016WL 1,1 stand or walk fot 15 minutes at a ttme. Qr a42.) Plaintiff needs to frequently elevate legs dudng the workday and would need unscheduled interruptions of work routine to leave the work station to alleviate the pain during the Plaintiff will need four to five breaks a day. Qr. day. (Id.) aa3.) Dr. I{ashefsky also stated that The ,{.LJ gve partial weight to Dt. IQshefsky's opinion because plaintiff "did not take any medications for her pain and . . . there is nothing to indicate that her pain is of such a recommended and it severe nature that sutgeq/ was ever does not appear that the pain would prevent the claimant from maintaining employment with some limitations." Qr. 22.) The ALJ's decision to assign little weight to Dr. IQshefsky's opinion due to the conservative natute of Plaintiffs treatment and the lack of evidence as to the need for surgery are valid reasons for not giving Dt. IQshefsky controlling weight. Soneraille,20l 5 \)7L 1268258, at *3; Bright, 2014 at*1.0; Lutas,201,2WL 6917052, set out ú*6. WL 587 1348, Notwithstanding the stringent functional limitations in Dt. I(ashesfsky's opinion, the recotd indicates that Plaintifls ueatment was limited to medication, epidural stetoid injections, and exercise. Çr 472,477,486,530,532,534.) recommendations to watch her diet and As discussed above and detailed by the ALJ in his analysis, the ALJ's decision to accord less than conrolling weight to Dr. I(ashefsky's opinion is supported by substanial evidence. Plaintiff contends that the ALJ incorecdy discredited Dr. IQshefsky's opinion "by . . *9 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 26,201.6), report and recommendation adopred, No. 7:14-CV-280-FL,2016 !üL 1045531 (E.D.N.C. Mat. 15,201,6); ll/are u. Astrue, No. 5:11,-CV-446-D,20'1.2 ìØL 6645000, at*2 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 20, 2012). 7043723, at '1,2 . stating that the claimant did not take any medication for pain." (Docket E.rt y 1,6 at 5.) However, Plaintiff takes the ,{LJ's statement out of context. The ALJ simply noted that on January 3,20"1.3, Dt. I(ashefsky indicated that Plaintiff did not take any medication "fot her discomfort and is not sure if she had any correctly noted Plaintiffs lack this. himself acknowledged x-rays." Çl 22, 374.) Thetefore, the ALJ of treatment for het impairments because Dr. I(ashefsky Plaintiff counters by stating that "the ALJ failed [to] considet the reason the claimant was without her medications on a few occasions as required by Social Security Ruling 96-7p." Q)ocket Entry 1,6 5.) at Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to consider valid reasons for her failure to obtain medication including "an inalslhty to afford treatment." (Id. at 6.) However, Dt. I(ashefsky noted that Plaintiff "reported that she was given a recofiunendation to try over-the-counter orthotics . . . but she was unable to afford them, the custom type for a rather. She was only able to get the over-the-countet ones, tired them shot pedod of time, they did not help." [r. 37 4.) Thus, Dr. I(ashefsky himself noted that Plaintiff was able to afford the type of treatment that was reconrnended to Plaintiff. Additionally, on May 6,2013, it was noted that Plaintiff "statefd] she ha[d] been on Celebrex in the past without any help. She statefd] she did take Flexeril one time was helpful with all the cramps she was having in her lower back." (Tr. in the past and that 405.) These facts indicate that Plaintiff had access to teatment. Plaintiff also contends that "the ALJ discredited Dr. I(ashefsky's opinion because surgery had not been tecommended without considering why Ettry 1,6 at 6.) it had not been." a (Docket Plaintiff does not point to any evidence in the record indicating that a 73 physician suggested surgery for Plaintiffs impairments. Furthermore, conservative treatment that is inconsistent with a physician's opinion is a valid reason for giving less than conttolling weight to an 5871,348; opinion. Sorneraille,2015 ìøL 1.268258, at *3; Bright, 2014 WL Løca¡ 2012WL 691,7052. Lastly, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ did not consider the consistency between the opinions of Amy Ford, PA-C and Dr. Iftistin Ito and Dr. I(ashefsky's opinion. (Docket E.ttty 16 at7.) However, the ALJ addressed both opinions and found that each opinion was inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the consistent with one another is immaterial other substantial evidence in the recotd. if both See tecord. The fact that the opinions were opinions are considered inconsistent with Craig76F.3dat590 ('F]f a physician's opinion is not supported by clinical evidence or if it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, should be accotded significantly less weight.') it Thus, PlaintifPs argument that the ALJ failed to consider the consistency between Amy Ford, PA-C and Dr. Iftistin lto and Dr. I(ashefsky's opinions is insufficient to require remand. 14 V. CONCLUSION After a carcful considetation of the evidence of record, the Court finds that the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence and was reached based upon correct application of the relevant a law. ,\ccordingly, this Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs motion for judgment on the pleadings Q)ocket Enrry 15) be DENIED, that Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings pocket Ent"y 17) be GRANTED, and that the final decision of the Commissioner be upheld. Joe L. Webster United States Magistrate Judge November?Å, zorc Dutham, North Carohna 15
]]>
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.
