O'HARE v. COLVIN, No. 2:2013cv00950 - Document 16 (W.D. Pa. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER denying 12 plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 14 defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. See Memorandum Judgment Order for further details. Signed by Judge Gustave Diamond on 9/22/14. (kw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
O&#039;HARE v. COLVIN Doc. 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MARGARET ANN O/HAREI Plaintiff l v. Civil Action No. 13-950 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER AND NOW, this of the parties' plaintiff's ~~~ of September, 2014, upon consideration cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to request Commissioner of applications for for Social review of Security disability the decision of ("Commissioner insurance supplemental security income ("SSI") ll ) benefits under Titles the Acting denying her ("DIBII) and II and XVI, respectively, of the Social Security Act, IT IS ORDERED that the Acting Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (Document No. 14) be, and the same hereby is, granted and plaintiff/s motion for summary judgment (Document No. 12) be, and the same hereby is, denied. As the factfinder, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") has an obligation to weigh may rej ect or discount reasons for doing so. 'A072 Cir. 1999). 1 of the facts and evidence of record and any evidence if Plummer v. Apfel, the ALJ explains 186 F.3d 422, 429 the (3d Where the ALJ's findings of fact are supported by (Rev. 8/82) Dockets.Justia.com substantial findings, evidence, even differently. 2001). if it a reviewing would have Fargnoli v. Moreover, it is court decided Massanari, well is bound the factual 247 F.3d 34, settled determined merely by the presence of that by 38 disability impairments, those inquiry (3d Cir. is not but by the effect that those impairments have upon an individual's ability to perform substantial gainful activity. 125, 129 (3d Cir. 1991). These Jones v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d well-established principles preclude a reversal or remand of the ALJ's decision here because the record contains substantial evidence to support the ALJ IS findings and conclusions. Plaintiff filed her applications for DIB and SSI on October 6, 2010, alleging disability beginning on June 30, 2010, due to myotonic dystrophy. Plaintiff's applications were denied. At plaintiff's request, an ALJ held a hearing on April 3, 2012, at which she appeared and testified while represented by counsel. On April II, 2012, the ALJ issued a decision finding that plaintiff is not disabled. The Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review on May 31, 2013, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. The instant action followed. Plaintiff, who has a high school education, was 35 years old on her alleged disability onset date, younger individual under §§404 .1563 (c), 416.963 (c) . experience a as fast the station cashier and sandwich maker, "&AO 72 (Rev. 8/82) regulations. Plaintiff food worker, - 2 and is classified as a has photo 20 past lab C.F.R. relevant technician, work gas but she has not engaged in substantial gainful activity at any time since her alleged onset date. After reviewing plaintiff's medical records and hearing testimony from plaintiff and a vocational expert at the hearing, the ALJ concluded that meaning of the Act. plaintiff is not disabled within the Although the medical evidence established that plaintiff suffers from the severe impairments of myotonic dystrophy, irritable bowel syndrome, migraines and anemia, those impairments, alone or in combination, do not meet or equal the criteria of any of the listed impairments set forth in Appendix 1 of 20 C.F.R., Subpart P, Regulation No.4 ("Appendix 1"). The ALJ found that plaintiff retains the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work with a number of additional non-exertional Plaintiff limitations. is restricted to only occasional balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, crawling and climbing ramps and stairs, ladders, and she is precluded from climbing Plaintiff is limited to frequent ropes or scaffolds. bilateral handling and fingering, but only occasional pushing and pulling with the bilateral upper extremities. She also requires a sit/stand option for one to two minutes at one hour intervals throughout the concentrated workday. exposure to In addition, extreme hot plaintiff and cold must avoid temperatures, humidity, irritants (such as fumes, odors, dust, gases and poorly ventilated areas) and hazards, including dangerous machinery and unprotected heights. Further, plaintiff is precluded from work that requires fine visual acuity, as well as fast-paced production %.AO 72 (Rev. 8/82) - 3 type work. Finally, plaintiff requires two additional ten minute bathroom breaks in addition to regularly scheduled breaks (collectively, the "RFC Finding") . Based concluded upon that testimony by plaintiff's a vocational vocational expert, factors the and ALJ residual functional capacity do not permit her to perform her past relevant work. However, the ALJ found that plaintiff is capable of performing other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy, such as an ink printer or laminator. Accordingly, the ALJ found that plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the Act. The Act defines "disability" as the inability to engage in substantial gainful activity by reason of a physical or mental impairment that can be expected to last for a continuous period of at least twelve months. 42 U.S.C. §§423 (d) (1) (A), 1382c(a) (3) (A). The impairment or impairments must be so severe that the claimant "is not only unable considering [her] to do [her] previous work but age, education and work experience, cannot, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy The Social " 42 U.S.C. §§423 (d) (2) (A), 1382c(a) (3) (B). Security Regulations delineate a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether a claimant is disabled. The ALJ must assess: (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether whether her she has a severe impairment; (3) if so, if not, impairment meets or equals the criteria listed in Appendix 1i (4) ""'A072 (Rev. 8/82) - 4 if not, whether the claimant's impairment performing her past relevant work; and prevents (5) if so, her from whether the claimant can perform any other work that exists in the national economy, in light of her age, residual functional 416.920(a) (4). education, capacity. 1 20 work experience and C.F.R. §§404.1520(a) (4), If the claimant is found disabled or not disabled at any step, further inquiry is unnecessary. Id. In this case, plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred at step 5 because: (1) he gave inadequate plaintiff's treating physician; weight to the opinion of (2) he did not properly evaluate plaintiff's credibilitYi and (3) he mischaracterized the record. The court finds that each of these arguments lack merit. Plaintiff first argues that the ALJ did not properly weigh the opinion of her treating physician, Dr. Mario Fatigati. A treating physician's opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence of record. 416.927(C) (2). that Dr. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(c) (2), Under this standard, the ALJ properly determined Fatigati' s opinion should not be given controlling lResidual functional capacity is defined as that which an individual still is able to do despite the limitations caused by her impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1545(a) (1), 916.945(a) (1). In assessing a claimant's residual functional capacity, the ALJ is required to consider the claimant's ability to meet the physical, mental, sensory and other requirements of work. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1545(a) (4), 416.945 (a) (4) . ~A072 (Rev. 8/82) - 5 weight. 2 (R. 25). Although Dr. Fatigati apparently is plaintiff's treating physician, the record indicates that he only examined plaintiff on two occasions April 7, 2011. once on January 17, (R. 314-18, 2011, 330-32) Dr. and subsequently on Fatigati confirmed plaintiff's previous diagnosis of myotonic dystrophy and he also indicated she has irritable bowel syndrome. (R. 318, 330, 332). Dr. plaintiff Fatigati's physical examinations occasions generally were unremarkable. of on both (R. 317-18, 331-32). The record contains no additional treatment notes from Dr. Fatigati other than a residual functional capacity questionnaire which he completed on March 29, last examined plaintiff. 2012, (R. nearly one year after he 336-39). According to Dr. Fatigati's check mark answers on the form report, plaintiff would require three unscheduled breaks during the work day, likely would miss work more than four times per month. and she (R. 338). Plaintiff argues that the ALJ should have given controlling weight to Dr. Fatigati's opinion on those matters, and therefore should have determined that she is unable to work. Plaintiff is incorrect. The ALJ properly determined that Dr. Fatigati's opinion as to the number of breaks plaintiff would require during the work day and the number of times she likely 2If a treating physician's opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ will give it the weight he deems appropriate based on such factors as the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, whether the opinion is supported by medical signs and laboratory findings and whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(c) (2)-(4), 416.927(c) (2)-(4). ~A072 (Rev. 8/82) - 6 would be absent from work per month was not well supported because it was largely based on her subjective complaints, which the ALJ found were only partially credible as discussed below, and because Dr. Fatigati's limitations. own (R. treatment 25). records did not support After reviewing the record, such the court agrees with the ALJ that Dr. Fatigati's opinion was not entitled to controlling weight. As the ALJ indicated, Dr. Fatigati's form report upon which plaintiff relies does not explain the basis for his opinion concerning work breaks and absences from work, and is inconsistent with his two physical examinations of plaint which fail to limitations. finds that document findings (R. 317-18, 331-32). that would warrant f such For these reasons, the court there was no error in the ALJ's consideration and weighing of Dr. Fatigati's opinion. 3 Plaintiff next argues that the ALJ did not properly evaluate her subjective complaints concerning her claimed limitations. claimant's complaints and other subjective supported by objective medical evidence. 416.929(c) i symptoms must A be 20 C.F.R. §§404.1529(c), Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 362 (3d Cir. 1999). An ALJ may reject the claimant's subjective testimony if he does not find it credible so long as he explains why he is rejecting the testimony. Schaudeck v. Commissioner of Social Security, 181 3A1though the ALJ did not give Dr. Fatigati's oplnlon controlling weight, he nonetheless considered and relied upon it in making the RFC Finding. (R. 25). For example, the RFC Finding provided for two additional ten minute bathroom breaks in addition to regularly scheduled breaks. 'Il!,AOn (Rev 8/82) - 7 F.3d 429, 433 (3d Cir. 1999). In this case, the ALJ properly analyzed plaintiff's subjective complaints and explained why he found her testimony not entirely credible. In evaluating plaintiff's credibility, the ALJ complied with the appropriate regulations and considered all of the relevant evidence in the record, including plaintiff's own statements about her symptoms and limitations, the medical evidence of record, the extent of plaintiff's treatment and the opinions of physicians who treated and examined her. See 20 C.F.R. (c) (3), 416.929(c) (1) and (c) (3) i §§404.1529(c) (1) and Social Security Ruling 96-7p. The ALJ then considered the extent to which plaintiff's alleged functional limitations reasonably could be accepted as consistent with the evidence of record and how those limitations affect her ability to work. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1529(c) (4), 416.929(c) (4). The ALJ concluded that the objective evidence is inconsistent with plaintiff's Accordingly, allegation the ALJ of total determined disabling that limitations. plaintiff's regarding her limitations was only partially credible. testimony (R. 26). This court finds that the ALJ adequately explained the bas his credibility determination in his decision, satisfied that such determination is for (R. 20-26), and is supported by substantial evidence. Plaintiff's final argument is that the ALJ mischaracterized the record because he stated that "[t]he diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome appears to have [been] made only as of April 7, 2011," (R. 27), but there is evidence of irritable bowel syndrome 'll>.A072 (Rev. 8/82) - 8 predating that time. Contrary to plaintiff's position, the ALJ thoroughly discussed and considered all of the medical evidence of record, he found that irritable bowel syndrome was one of plaintiff's severe impairments, and his RFC Finding accounted for limitations which resulted from that condition by including two additional ten minute bathroom breaks in addition to regularly scheduled breaks. (R. 18, 20-25, 27). Accordingly, even if the ALJ made an error in referencing when plaintiff's irritable bowel syndrome was diagnosed, any such error was harmless because he was fully aware of that condition and accounted for any resulting limitations in crafting the RFC Finding. In conclusion, after carefully and methodically considering all of the medical evidence of record, the ALJ determined that plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the Act. ALJ's findings and conclusions are supported evidence and are not otherwise erroneous. by substantial Therefore, the decision of the Acting Commissioner must be affirmed. /? Gustave Diamond United States District Judge cc: Edward C. Morascyzk, Esq. Edward C. Morascyzk & Associates 382 West Chestnut Street Washington, PA 15301 Michael Colville Assistant U.S. Attorney 700 Grant Street Suite 4000 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 'l'>.Aon (Rev. 8/82) - 9 The
]]>
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.
