NEVINS v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, No. 3:2010cv00193 - Document 15 (W.D. Pa. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER denying 9 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 12 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 9/26/11. (gpr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
NEVINS v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY Doc. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ADAM BRAD NEVINS, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 10-193J MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER AND NOW, ~~y 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 Social of 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. 12) 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 rej ect or discount reasons for doing so. Cir.1999). substantial any evidence if Plummer v. Apfel, the ALJ explains the 186 F.3d 422, (3d 429 Where the ALJ's findings of fact are supported by evidence, a reviewing court is bound by those <!l>.AOn (Rev. 8/82) findings, even if it would have decided the factual 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 I substantial S decision here because the record contains evidence to support the ALJ I s findings and conclusions. Plaintiff protectively filed his pending application for benefits on April 10, 2008, alleging a disability onset date of July 13, 2006, due to back pain and diabetes. Because plaintiff had acquired sufficient coverage to remain insured only through December 31, 2007, he is required to establish that he became disabled prior to that date. Accordingly, the relevant time period at issue in this case is the alleged onset date of July 13, 2006, to the "date last insured" of December 31, 2007. Plaintif f' s application was denied ini tially. request an ALJ held a plaintiff, hearing on January represented by counsel, 5, At plaintiff's 2010, at which appeared and testified. On January 22, 2010, the ALJ issued a decision finding that plaintiff was not disabled at any time during the relevant time period. On June 19, 2010, the Appeals Council denied review making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. Plaintiff was 42 years old on his date last insured and is classified as a younger person under the regulations. §404 .1563 (c) . He has a high school education and 20 C.F.R. has past relevant work experience as a manager, a truck driver and a police officer, but he did not engage in any substantial gainful activity during the relevant time period. t!\l,AOn (Rev. 8/82) 2 After testimony reviewing from plaintiff t s plaintiff and medical a records vocational and hearing expertt the ALJ concluded that plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Act during the relevant time period. The ALJ found that although the medical evidence establishes that plaintiff suffers from the severe impairments of spinal disorders t diabetes mellitus II and migraine combination, headaches, those do not meet or equal impairments t alone or in 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 sedentary exertional level but with certain restrictions recognizing effects of his impairments t including, inter alia, option and the need to raise his feet. account these limiting effects t the (R. 13). limiting a sit/stand Taking into a vocational expert identified numerous categories of jobs which plaintiff can perform based upon his age, capacity, education, found experience including buckler/lacer, weight tester. ALJ work and residual band attacher, functional patcher and Relying on the vocational expert's testimony, the that, although plaintiff cannot perform his past relevant work, numerous jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy that plaintiff could have performed prior to the expiration of his insured status. Accordingly, the ALJ determined that plaintiff was not under a disability during the relevant time period. 'A072 (Rev. 8/82) - 3 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 l considering his agel education and work experience I engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy • • • • 11 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 stepi the claim need not be reviewed further. s. Ct. Id.; see Barnhart v. Thomas I 124 376 (2003). Here l plaintiff raises two challenges to the ALJ/s determination that plaintiff was not disabled during the relevant time period: (1) the ALJ improperly analyzed the medical evidence and to failed give appropriate weight to the opinion of 1 The ALJ must determine: (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if not whether he has a severe impairment; (3) if SOl whether his impairment meets or equals the criteria listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404 1 Subpart PI Appendix 1; (4) if not whether the claimant's impairment prevents him from performing his past-relevant work; and l (5) if SOl 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). l l ~A072 (Rev. 8/82) - 4 plaintiff's treating physician; and, (2) the evaluated plaintiff's subjective complaints. ALJ improperly Upon review, the court is satisfied that the ALJ properly evaluated the evidence and that all of the ALJ's findings are supported by substantial evidence. 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. Lieber, who suggested on two occasions that plaintiff cannot work. (R. 314; 317).2 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 substantial, of treating physicians and at times even controlling, §404.1527(d) (2); Fargnoli, 247 F.3d at 33. are entitled weight. 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 2 In a letter to Dr. Berez dated March 14, 2007, Dr. Lieber noted that plaintiff "is still incapable of performing sedentary work due to the fact that he has sitting intolerance." (R. 314). In another letter to Dr. Berez dated May 31, 2007, Dr. Lieber again noted that "[a] t present, [plaintiff] cannot work." (R. 317) . '!,\,Aon (Rev. 8/82) - 5 account numerous factors l including the opinion/s supportabilitYI consistency and specialization. Here the evaluating contention plaintiff relevant ALJ the l medical 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(d). adhered to the foregoing evidence. Contrary the ALJ did not ignore Dr. l could time not perform period but l even he to Lieber s in plaintiff/s opinion that l sedentary rather standards work during the expressly addressed Dr. Leiber1s reports in his decision and adequately explained why he did not give his opinion controlling weight. (R. 16). The ALJ explained that Dr. Lieber s opinion is not supported l by his own findings and is inconsistent with the clinical and obj ective findings of record and with other substantial evidence. (R. 16) In particular throughout negative the I the ALJ pointed out that consistently time period at straight leg raise issue Dr. tests bilateral lower extremity strength a neurological deficit. that plaintiff could full reported normal l I intact sensation and reflexes without l (R.16) . not and Lieber had Because Dr. Lieber's opinion perform even sedentary inconsistent with the totality of the evidence l work was the ALJ determined it was not entitled to controlling weight. the ALJ 1s The record clearly supports foregoing medical evidence. a physician l As an initial matter treating or otherwise l i SSR 96-5p. l the the opinion of on the ultimate determination of disability never is entitled to special C.F.R. §404.1527(e) evaluation of significance. 20 Accordingly, Dr. Lieber1s opinion that plaintiff cannot work was not entitled to controlling weight. ~A072 (Rev. 8/82) - 6 The ALJ's conclusion that plaintiff's back impairment, while severe, during did not result the relevant in completely debilitating limitations time evidence in the record. period also is supported by other The ALJ summarized the relevant medical evidence in his decision and noted that Dr. Bookwalter reported on October 6, 2006, that plaintiff had normal reflexes and normal straight leg raising and no motor deficit. opinion of Dr. objective Lieber was medical findings evidence in the record, (R. 14). Because the inconsistent not only with his own but also with other substantial the ALJ did not err in not giving his opinion controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(d) i SSR 96-2p. The ALJ also properly considered the opinion of the state agency consultant in assessing plaintiff's residual functional capacity. Pursuant to the consul tants are Regulations, state agency medical "highly qualified physicians ... experts in Social Security disability evaluation. §404.1527(f) (2) (i). who are also 20 C.F.R. II 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); SSR 96-6p. evidence. 20 C.F.R. The ALJ did so here and, having concluded that the state agency physician's report was consistent with, and supported by, the medical evidence, that opinion "significant probative weight./I he properly gave (R. 15). In sum, the ALJ did a thorough job in his decision in setting forth the relevant medical evidence and explaining why he rejected ~A072 (Rev. 8182) - 7 or discounted any evidence. The court has reviewed the ALJ's decision and the record as a whole and is convinced that the ALJ's evaluation of the medical evidence is supported by substantial evidence. The court also is satisfied that the ALJ properly evaluated plaintiff's subjective complaints accordance with the regulations. SSR 96-7p. ALJ of pain and limitations 20 C.F.R. §404.1S29(c) i in see also As required, in assessing plaintiff's credibility the considered plaintiff's subjective complaints, but also considered those complaints in light of the medical evidence and all of the other evidence of record. The ALJ did an adequate job in his decision explaining why plaintiff's statements concerning his impairments and their impact on his ability to work are not entirely credible. Moreover, while it is true, as plaintiff now (R. 15). 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 ~A072 (Rev 8182) - 8 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. 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 cc: Sandra R. Kushner, Esq. Rothman Gordon, P.C. Grant Building, Third Floor 310 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Stephanie L. Haines Assistant U.S. Attorney 200 Penn Traffic Building 319 Washington Street Johnstown, PA 15901 'A072 (Rev. 8/82) - 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.
