Tracy Russell v. Commissioner of Social Sec, No. 10-2348 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2348 TRACY BRUNER RUSSELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (2:10-cv-00005-jpj-pms) Submitted: June 30, 2011 Decided: July 22, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hugh F. O Donnell, CLIENT CENTERED LEGAL SERVICES OF SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA, Norton, Virginia, for Appellant. Eric P. Kressman, Regional Chief Counsel, Victor Pane, Supervisory Attorney, Jordana Cooper, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tracy order Bruner granting judgment the motion Commissioner s in Russell appeals Commissioner Russell s decision of the Social district court s Security s summary action seeking her disability denying review of the insurance and supplemental security income benefits under the Social Security Act ( the Act ). On appeal, Russell raises only one issue whether the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) erred in rejecting the opinion of her treating rheumatologist regarding her ability to work. Finding no error, we affirm. [W]e review de novo the district court s award of summary judgment, viewing the facts and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Cir. 2008). Emmett v. Johnson, 532 F.3d 291, 297 (4th Summary judgment is proper if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Additionally, we review the denial of benefits under the Act to ensure that the ALJ s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and [that] the correct law was applied. Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. such relevant evidence as a reasonable adequate to support a conclusion. 2 mind might 1990). It means accept as Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (internal quotation marks omitted). We will not reweigh the evidence or make credibility determinations because those functions are left to the ALJ. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005). evidence allows reasonable minds to Johnson v. Where conflicting differ as to whether a claimant is disabled, the responsibility for that decision falls on the [ALJ]. Id. (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). An ALJ is required to weigh medical opinions based on: (1) whether the physician has examined the applicant, (2) the treatment relationship between the physician and the applicant, (3) the supportability of the physician s opinion, (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record, and (5) whether the physician is a § 404.1527 (2005)). to the Id. specialist. testimony at 654 (citing 20 C.F.R. While [c]ourts often accord greater weight of a treating physician, id. (internal quotation marks omitted), the ALJ is not required to do so if a physician s opinion is not supported by clinical evidence or if it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 590 (4th § 404.1527(d)(2). If the ALJ physician s opinion controlling Cir. does 1996); not weight, see give she Craig v. 20 the must C.F.R. treating give good reasons in [her] notice of determination or decision for the weight [she] give[s] [the] treating C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). 3 source s opinion. 20 Upon review, we conclude that the ALJ did not err in discounting In her the opinion decision, the of Russell s ALJ noted treating that rheumatologist. Russell saw the rheumatologist, Dr. Morris, infrequently, and had not seen him for six months assessment. opinion prior to his filling out the disability The decision further explains that Dr. Morris s about Russell s disability was not supported treatment notes or by other information in the file. his assessment limited use improving form of her with precluded hands, treatment Russell his and notes his from opinion is his Although working indicate by that due she unsupported to was by medical tests or other evidence. On Russell s last visit to Dr. Morris of prior to his assessment her ability to work, Dr. Morris noted that Russell had no active synovitis and had the full range of motion in her hands. These notes constitute substantial evidence sufficient to allow the ALJ to discount Dr. Morris s disability assessment. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s grant of summary judgment for the Commissioner. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
