HETRICK v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, No. 3:2010cv00151 - Document 15 (W.D. Pa. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER denying 9 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 11 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. See Memorandum Judgment Order for further details. Signed by Judge Gustave Diamond on 9/29/11. (gpr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
HETRICK v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY Doc. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ERIC L. HETRICK, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 10-151J MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER AND NOW, ~~ay this of September, 2011, upon due consideration of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to plaintiff's request for review of the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner" ) denying plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act ("Act"), IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (Document No. 11) be, and the same hereby is, summary judgment granted and plaintiff's motion for (Document No.9) be, and the same hereby is, denied. As the factfinder, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") has an obligation to weigh all of the facts and evidence of record and may reject or discount reasons for doing so. Cir.1999). substantial fQ.AO 72 (Rev. 8/82) findings, any evidence if the ALJ explains the Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 429 (3d Where the ALJ's findings of fact are supported by evidence, even if it a reviewing would have court decided is the bound by factual those inquiry Dockets.Justia.com differently. 2001). Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 38 (3d Cir. These 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 protectively filed his pending application for benefits on January 16, 2007, alleging a disability onset date of February 28, 2005, due to a neck injury and heart problems. Plaintiff's application was denied initially. At plaintiff's request an ALJ held a hearing on May 27, 2008, at which plaintiff, represented by counsel, appeared and testified. On July 8, 2008, the ALJ issued a decision finding that plaintiff is not disabled. On April 15, 2010, the Appeals Council denied review making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. Plaintiff was 43 years old at the time of the ALJ's decision and is classified as a younger person under the regulations. C.F.R. §404.1563(c). classified as limited. 20 He has a tenth grade education which is 20 C.F.R. §404.1564(b) (3). past relevant work experience as a Plaintiff has tractor trailer driver and truck driver, but he has not engaged in any substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date. After testimony reviewing from plaintiff's plaintiff and a medical records vocational and expert, hearing the ALJ concluded that plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the Act. The ALJ found that although the medical evidence establishes that plaintiff suffers from the severe impairments of cervical ~A072 (Rev. 8182) - 2 degenerative disc disease with radiculopathy, status post cervical diskectomy and consciousness, hypertension, fusion, vasovagal episodes with occipital neuralgia, coronary artery history of myocardial infarction loss of disease, status post a stent, and obesity, those impairments, alone or in combination, do not meet or equal the criteria of any of the impairments listed at Appendix 1 of 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P. The ALJ also found that plaintiff retains the residual functional capacity to engage in work at the light exertional level but with numerous physical, non-exertional and environmental restrictions recognizing the limiting effects of his impairments. (R. 13). Taking into account these limiting effects, a vocational expert identified numerous categories of jobs which plaintiff can perform based upon his age, education, work experience and residual functional capacity, including garment sorter and folder. Relying on the vocational expert's testimony, the ALJ found that, although plaintiff cannot perform his past relevant work, he is capable of making an adjustment to numerous significant numbers in the national economy. jobs existing in Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff is not disabled under the Act. The Act defines "disability" as the inability to engage in substantial gainful activity by reason of a physical or mental impairment which can be expected to last for a continuous period of at least twelve months. 42 U.S.C. §423 (d) (1) (A) . The impairment or impairments must be so severe that the claimant "is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering ~A072 (Rev. 8/82) - 3 his age, education and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy • • • • II 42 U.S.C. §423 (d) (2) (A) . The Commissioner has promulgated regulations incorporating a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether a claimant is under a disability.l 20 C.F.R. §404.1520. If the claimant is found disabled or not disabled at any step, the claim need not be reviewed further. Id.; see Barnhart v. Thomas, 124 S . Ct. 3 76 (2003) . Here, plaintiff determination improperly that raises plaintiff evaluated treating physician; the is not medical challenges to disabled: evidence the (1) from ALJ's the ALJ plaintiff's (2) the ALJ improperly evaluated plaintiff's credibility; and, finding hypothetical and several (3) the ALJ's to residual the functional vocational account for all of plaintiff's limitations. expert capacity failed Upon review, to the court is satisfied that the ALJ properly evaluated the evidence and that all of the ALJ's findings are supported by substantial evidence. 1 The ALJ must determine: (I) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if not, whether he has a severe impairment; (3) if so, whether his impairment meets or equals the criteria listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix Ii (4) if not, whether the claimant's impairment prevents him from performing his past-relevant work; and, (5) if so, whether the claimant can perform any other work which exists in the national economy, in light of his age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520; Newell v. Commissioner of Social Security, 347 F.3d 541, 545 (3d Cir. 2003). ~A072 (Rev. 8/82) - 4 Plaintiff's first argument evaluated the medical evidence. is that the ALJ improperly Specifically, plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to give controlling weight to the opinion of his treating physician, Dr. Paterson, who opined in a physician statement dated March 6, 2008, that plaintiff cannot engage in work related activity on a sustained basis. (R. 435-36). The court finds no error in the ALJ's evaluation of this evidence. Under the Social Security Regulations and the law of this circuit, opinions of treating physicians are entitled substantial, and at times even controlling, weight. §404.1527(d) (2) i Fargnoli, 247 F.3d at 33. to 20 C.F.R. Where a treating physician's opinion on the nature and severity of an impairment is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, it will be given controlling weight. Id. When a treating source's opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, it is to be evaluated and weighed under the same standards applied to all other medical opinions, taking into account numerous factors, including the opinion's supportability, consistency and specialization. Here, the ALJ adhered 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(d). to evaluating the medical evidence. the foregoing standards in The ALJ expressly addressed Dr. Peterson's report in his decision and thoroughly explained why he did not give his opinion controlling weight. noted that Dr. findings and is The ALJ Paterson's opinion is not supported by his own inconsistent with the clinical and objective ~A072 (Rev 8/82) (R. 18 19). - 5 findings of record and with other substantial evidence. (R. 19) In particular, the ALJ pointed out that Dr. Paterson reported many "benign objective signs" and that plaintiff's self reported activities also are inconsistent with the "degree of limitation" suggested by Dr. Paterson. Finally, the ALJ noted that Dr. Paterson's conclusions were at odds with those of the state agency medical consultant whose opinion was entitled to "some weight." Because Dr. Paterson's limitations are inconsistent with the totality of the evidence, the ALJ determined his opinion was not entitled to controlling weight. (R. 19). The record supports the ALJ's evaluation of the foregoing medical evidence. As an initial matter, the opinion of a physician, treating or otherwise, on the ultimate determination of disability never is entitled to special significance. C.F.R. §404.1527{e); SSR 96-5p. Accordingly, Dr. 20 Paterson's opinion that plaintiff cannot work on a sustained basis was not entitled to controlling weight. The ALJ's conclusion that plaintiff's severe impairments do not result in completely debilitating limitations also is supported by other evidence in the record as detailed by the ALJ, including the medical examiners at Corporate Care Services, who opined that plaintiff could perform at least sedentary work, and Drs. Talbott, Lieber and Bookwalter. (R. 17-18). In light of this contrary evidence, the ALJ did not err in not giving controlling weight to Dr. Paterson's opinion that plaintiff cannot perform any work. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527{d) i SSR 96-2p. ~A072 (Rev. 8182) - 6 The ALJ also properly considered the opinion of the state agency consultant in assessing plaintiff/s residual functional capacity. Pursuant consultants are to the Regulations, state "highly qualified physicians agency medical ... experts in Social Security disability evaluation. §404.1527(f) (2) (i). who are also I' 20 C.F.R. Accordingly, while not bound by findings made by reviewing physicians, the ALJ is to consider those findings as opinion evidence, and is to evaluate them under the same standards as all other medical opinion §404.1527(f) (2) (ii) i SSR 96-6p. evidence. 20 The ALJ did so here and C.F.R. l having concluded that the state agency physician/s report was consistent with, and supported bYI the medical evidence, that opinion "some weight. In sum l 1I he properly gave (R.19). the ALJ did a thorough job in his decision in setting forth the relevant medical evidence and explaining why he rejected or discounted any evidence. The court has reviewed the ALJ's decision and the record as a whole and is satisfied that the ALJ/s evaluation of the medical evidence is supported by substantial evidence. The court also finds no error in the ALJ's evaluation of plaintiff/s subjective complaints of pain and limitations. required l As in assessing plaintiff's credibility the ALJ considered plaintiff's subjective complaints, but also considered those complaints in light of the medical evidence and all of the other evidence of record. 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(c) ~A072 (Rev. 8/82) - 7 i see also SSR 96-7p. The ALJ did a thorough job in his decision explaining why plaintiff's statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of his symptoms are not entirely credible. 16-17). Moreover, while it is true, (R. as plaintiff now asserts, that sporadic and transitory activities cannot be used to show an ability to engage in substantial gainful activity, see Fargnoli, 247 F.3d at 40, n.S, the ALJ did not do so here. determining plaintiff's residual functional Instead, capacity, in the ALJ properly considered plaintiff's allegations in light of not only his activities of daily living but also in light of the medical evidence, findings which revealed the absence of clinical and objective supporting plaintiff's allegations of totally debilitating symptoms. It also is important to note that while the ALJ did not find plaintiff's subjective complaints entirely credible, his decision makes clear that, to the extent plaintiff's allegations as to the limitations arising from his impairments are supported by the medical and other evidence, the ALJ accommodated those limitations in his residual functional capacity finding. Only to the extent that plaintiff's allegations are not so supported did the ALJ find them to be not credible. The court is satisfied that the ALJ's evaluation of plaintiff's credibility is supported by substantial evidence. Finally, the court finds no merit to plaintiff's contention that the ALJ improperly relied on the vocational expert's response to a hypothetical that failed to account for the likelihood that ~A072 (Rev. 8/82) - 8 plaintiff would need excessive rest breaks during the workday and that he likely would be absent from work in excess of 15 days per month as suggested by Dr. Paterson. (R. 436). A hypothetical to the vocational expert must reflect only those impairments and limitations supported by Podedworny v. Harris, 745 F.2d 210 (3d Cir. 1984). the record. Here, the need for excessive breaks or to miss work for fifteen or more days per month is supported neither by the objective medical evidence nor by plaintiff's reported daily activities. Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in rejecting the vocational expert's response to a hypothetical posited by plaintiff's attorney incorporating such limitations. See Jones v. Barnhart, 364 F.3d SOl, 506 (3d Cir. 2004) (ALJ has authority to disregard vocational expert's response to hypothetical inconsistent with evidence) . After carefully and methodically considering all medical evidence of record and plaintiff's testimony, of the the ALJ determined that plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the Act. The ALJ's findings and conclusions are supported by substantial evidence and are not otherwise erroneous. Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner must be affirmed. / Gustave Diamond United States District Judge 'I';oA072 (Rev 8/82) - 9 cc: Karl E. Osterhout, Esq. 521 Cedar Way Suite 200 Oakmont, PA 15139 John J. Valkovci, Jr. Assistant U.S. Attorney 224 Penn Traffic Building 319 Washington Street Johnstown, PA 15901 ~A072 (Rev 8(82) - 10
]]>
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.
