Luttrell v. Social Security Administration, No. 3:2017cv00171 - Document 13 (E.D. Ark. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER dismissing Luttrell's complaint; and denying all requested relief. Judgment will be entered for the Commissioner. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris on 1/22/2018. (ljb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Luttrell v. Social Security Administration Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION LISA LUTTRELL PLAINTIFF v. NO. 3:17-cv-00171 PSH NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaint iff Lisa Lut t rell (“ Lut t rell” ) began t he case at bar by filing a complaint pursuant t o 42 U.S.C. 405(g). In t he complaint , she challenged t he final decision of t he Act ing Commissioner of t he Social Securit y Administ rat ion (“ Commissioner” ), a decision based upon findings made by an Administ rat ive Law Judge (“ ALJ” ). Lut t rell maint ains t hat t he ALJ’ s findings are not support ed by subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole. 1 Lut t rell maint ains t hat her residual funct ional capacit y was not properly assessed and offers t wo reasons why. Lut t rell first maint ains t hat t he ALJ failed t o give proper weight t o t he opinions of Dr. Roland Hollis, M.D., (“ Hollis” ), Lut t rell’ s t reat ing physician. Second, Lut t rell maint ains t hat t he ALJ failed t o give proper weight t o t he opinions of Dr. Samuel Hest er, Ph.D., (“ Hest er” ), a consult at ive examiner. The quest ion for t he Court is whet her t he ALJ’ s findings are support ed by subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole. “ Subst ant ial evidence means less t han a preponderance but enough t hat a reasonable person would find it adequat e t o support t he decision.” See Boet t cher v. Ast rue, 652 F.3d 860, 863 (8t h Cir. 2011). 1 Dockets.Justia.com The ALJ is required t o assess t he claimant ’ s residual funct ional capacit y, which is a det erminat ion of “ t he most a person can do despit e t hat person’ s limit at ions.” See Brown v. Barnhart , 390 F.3d 535, 538-39 (8t h Cir. 2004). The assessment is made using all of t he relevant evidence in t he record, but t he assessment must be support ed by some medical evidence. See Wildman v. Ast rue, 596 F.3d 959 (8t h Cir. 2010). In making t he assessment , t he ALJ is required t o consider t he medical opinions in t he record. See Wagner v. Ast rue, 499 F.3d 842 (8t h Cir. 2007). A t reat ing physician’ s medical opinions are given cont rolling weight if t hey are well-support ed by medically accept able clinical and laborat ory diagnost ic t echniques and are not inconsist ent wit h t he ot her subst ant ial evidence. See Choat e v. Barnhart , 457 F.3d 865 (8t h Cir. 2006). The ALJ may discount a t reat ing physician’ s medical opinions if ot her medical assessment s are support ed by bet t er or more t horough medical evidence or where t he t reat ing physician renders inconsist ent opinions t hat undermine t he credibilit y of his opinions. See Id. Lut t rell filed her applicat ion for disabilit y insurance benefit s on November 12, 2014, and alleged t hat she became disabled and unable t o work beginning on May 29, 2011. Wit h respect t o t he relevant period in t his case and t he scope of evidence under review, t he ALJ could and did find t he following: [Lut t rell] previously filed a Tit le II applicat ion on January 19, 2011, and an Administ rat ive Law Judge issued a hearing decision on June 19, 2012, finding t hat [Lut t rell] was not disabled from May 1, 2010, t he alleged onset dat e in t hat case, t hrough June 19, 2012, t he dat e of t hat decision ... The Appeals Council denied [Lut t rell’ s] request t o appeal t he hearing decision; [she] filed an appeal wit h t he Federal dist rict court , which affirmed t he prior decision ... The previous Administ rat ive Law Judge opinion is t hus final and binding in regard t o t he period already adj udicat [ed] wit h respect t o [Lut t rell’ s] January 19, 2011 Tit le II applicat ion. 2 The issue of disabilit y as t o t he previously adj udicat ed period is res j udicat a, involving t he same part ies and legal quest ions. This current decision on [Lut t rell’ s] present applicat ion t hus considers only t he t ime period beginning June 20, 2012, t he day aft er [t he] dat e of t he prior decision, and cont inuing t hrough t he dat e of t he [second Administ rat ive Law Judge’ s] decision. ... [A]ny discussion of evidence from ... prior t o t he dat e of t he prior administ rat ive law j udge[’ s] decision is limit ed t o t he purpose of providing a foundat ional hist ory; t here is no aut horit y t o reopen or revise t he prior adj udicat ion and considerat ion of t he evidence relat ing t o t he prior period for hist orical purposes does not imply reopening or revising. See Transcript at 23. The quest ion for t he ALJ, and t he quest ion now for review, is whet her Lut t rell was disabled for purposes of t he Social Securit y Act at any t ime from June 20, 2012, i.e., t he day aft er her first applicat ion for disabilit y insurance benefit s was denied, t hrough December 31, 2014, i.e., t he dat e Lut t rell last met t he insured st at us requirement s of t he Social Securit y Act . Lut t rell ably summarized t he evidence in t he record, see Docket Ent ry 12 at CM/ ECF 3-8, and t he Commissioner did not challenge t he summary or ot herwise place it in disput e. The Court accept s t he summary as a fair summat ion of t he evidence. The summary will not be reproduced, save t o not e several mat t ers germane t o t he issues raised in t he part ies’ briefs. Like t he ALJ, t he Court will consider evidence prior t o June 20, 2012, i.e., t he day aft er her first applicat ion for disabilit y insurance benefit s was denied, only for t he purpose of placing Lut t rell’ s impairment s in an hist orical cont ext . The record reflect s t hat Lut t rell saw Hollis on June 1, 2010. See Transcript at 409. His progress not e reflect s t hat she had been in an aut omobile accident and had sought emergency room medical care for t he inj uries she sust ained. Hollis recorded Lut t rell’ s complaint s t o include syncope episodes and pain in her neck, back, left arm, and left knee. It is not clear what he recommended in response t o her complaint s. 3 Lut t rell underwent t est ing for her syncope episodes. See Transcript at 376, 377, 374. The result s of t he t est ing were unremarkable, alt hough an MRI of her brain revealed “ [s]everal 3mm focal increased T-2 and flare signal int ensit y at bilat eral corona radiat a which may represent t iny ischemic changes ...” See Transcript at 374. Hollis t reat ed Lut t rell for her syncope episodes and complaint s of depression on July 21, 2010; August 17, 2010; Sept ember 14, 2010; and again on Oct ober 26, 2010. See Transcript at 408, 407, 406 405. He prescribed Dilant in for her syncope episodes and recommended she see a neurologist . He prescribed Celexa and Xanax for her depression and recommended she seek counseling. On February 22, 2011, Hest er saw Lut t rell for a ment al diagnost ic evaluat ion. See Transcript at 336-344. Lut t rell’ s complaint were recorded t o be as follows: [Lut t rell] report s having problems wit h chronic pain in bot h wrist s and left shoulder. She has t endon and ligament damage t hat has required surgery in t he past . It was a work relat ed inj ury on her wrist s and she recent ly fell and inj ured her shoulder. She has been t reat ed for bot h depression and anxiet y sympt oms by her [primary care physician]. She has never seen ment al healt h professionals. See Transcript at 336. Hest er diagnosed a depressive disorder and a pain disorder associat ed wit h bot h medical and psychological fact ors. Wit h respect t o Lut t rell’ s adapt ive funct ioning, Hest er opined t hat Lut t rell can t end t o her act ivit ies of daily living; is able t o communicat e and int eract in a socially adequat e, int elligible, and effect ive manner; is able t o at t end and sust ain concent rat ion on basic t asks; is able t o sust ain persist ence in complet ing t asks; but is not likely t o be able t o cope wit h t he t ypical ment al demands of basic work-like t asks or complet e work-like t asks wit hin an accept able t imeframe. 4 Hollis saw Lut t rell on what appears t o have been five occasions bet ween March 8, 2011, and April 4, 2012. See Transcript at 404 (03/ 08/ 2011), 403 (08/ 01/ 2011), 402 (10/ 11/ 2011), 401 (01/ 05/ 2012), 400 (04/ 04/ 2012). The progress not es reflect t hat Hollis t reat ed Lut t rell for her complaint s of right shoulder pain, wrist pain, left knee pain, chronic obst ruct ive pulmonary disease (“ COPD” ), t remors, hypert ension, seizures, depression, and anxiet y. He prescribed, or cont inued her on, medicat ions t hat included Soma, Dilant in, Celexa, Xanax, and Symbicort , and he observed t hat she was t aking hydrocodone j udiciously. He also ordered t est ing. On March 9, 2011, MRI t est ing of Lut t rell’ s right shoulder was performed. The result s of t he MRI were posit ive for a part ial t ear of t he supraspinat us t endon and minimal j oint effusion. See Transcript at 370. Aft er April 4, 2012, Hollis saw Lut t rell on what appears t o have been fift een occasions t hrough March 30, 2015. See Transcript at 399 (10/ 08/ 2012), 398 (11/ 27/ 2012), 397 (02/ 26/ 2013), 396 (05/ 30/ 2013), 395 (08/ 29/ 2013), 394 (01/ 14/ 2014), 393 (03/ 18/ 2014), 392 (05/ 22/ 2014), 391 (08/ 09/ 2014), 390 (10/ 21/ 2014), 419 (01/ 30/ 2015), 418 (04/ 24/ 2015), 446 (08/ 26/ 2015), 445 (12/ 29/ 2015), 451 (03/ 30/ 2016). The progress not es reflect t hat Hollis cont inued t o t reat Lut t rell for her complaint s of right shoulder pain, wrist pain, COPD, hypert ension, seizures, and anxiet y. He also t reat ed her for complaint s t hat included back pain, which he charact erized at t imes as chronic pain, ost eoart hrit is, and degenerat ive j oint disease. He also t reat ed her for pain and swelling in her hands, legs, knees, and feet . He prescribed, or cont inued her on, medicat ions t hat included hydrocodone, Carafat e, Dilant in, and Keppra. Addit ionally, he ordered t est ing. 5 On April 14, 2015, Hollis signed a Treat ing Physician’ s Report for Seizure Disorder. See Transcript at 413-414. In t he report , Hollis represent ed t hat Lut t rell experiences pet it mal seizures approximat ely t wo t imes a mont h. The seizures involve, int er alia, a loss of consciousness and are accompanied by fat igue, confusion, and headaches. She t akes Dilant in and Keppra and has been doing so since 2010. Her last EEG was on June 9, 2010, and t he result s of t he EEG were wit hin normal limit s. On May 12, 2015, a CT scan of Lut t rell’ s lumbar spine was performed. See Transcript at 424-425. The result s of t he CT scan were unremarkable as only mild degenerat ive changes t o her bilat eral sacroiliac j oint s were not ed. On July 1, 2015, x-rays were t aken of Lut t rell’ s wrist s and left knee. See Transcript at 440-443. The result s of t he x-rays revealed minimal t o mild ost eoart hrit ic changes in bot h her wrist s and not hing remarkable in her left knee. On April 28, 2016, Hollis signed a Medical Source St at ement -Physical on behalf of Lut t rell. See Transcript at 453-454. In t he document , Hollis opined t hat Lut t rell could lift and/ or carry less t han t en pounds at any t ime, could st and and/ or walk for a t ot al of about t hree hours in an eight hour workday, could st and and/ or walk cont inuously for about five minut es at one t ime, could sit for a t ot al of about four hours in an eight hour workday, could sit cont inuously for about fift een minut es at one t ime, and has a limit ed abilit y t o push and/ or pull. He also opined t hat she should avoid environment al hazards. He at t ribut ed her limit at ions t o COPD, seizures, and pain. Hollis represent ed t hat his opinions were based on his examinat ions of Lut t rell and cardiology t est ing. He represent ed t hat his assessment was for t he period from t he day he signed t he document , i.e., April 28, 2016, t o April 28, 2017, i.e., one year in t he fut ure. 6 On February 16, 2017, or approximat ely seven mont hs aft er t he ALJ’ s decision, Hollis signed a second Medical Source St at ement -Physical on behalf of Lut t rell. See Transcript at 9-10. In t he document , he re-affirmed t he opinions he offered in his first medical source st at ement . Hollis addit ionally opined t hat Lut t rell has a limit ed abilit y t o reach, finger, and handle and has a decreased abilit y t o concent rat e and persist in a j ob set t ing. He at t ribut ed her limit at ions t o COPD, seizures, lumbar degenerat ive j oint disease, and depression. He represent ed t hat her limit at ions had been present since “ 6/ 1/ 11 t o indefinit ely,” see Transcript at 10, and prevent ed her from maint aining a full-t ime work schedule. Lut t rell’ s medical records were reviewed by st at e agency medical professionals. See Transcript at 113-124, 126-140. The professionals agreed t hat she could lift and/ or carry up t o t went y pounds occasionally and up t o t en pounds frequent ly, could st and and/ or walk for a t ot al of about six hours in an eight hour workday, could sit for a t ot al of about six hours in an eight hour workday, but should avoid exposure t o hazards. Lut t rell and members of her family complet ed a series of document s in connect ion wit h her applicat ion. See Transcript at 229-230, 231-240, 241-248, 249-255, 256-262, 272-273, 274-281. In t he document s, t hey represent ed t hat she experiences const ant pain while st anding for even a few minut es. She can st and and/ or walk for only about t hree minut es before experiencing pain and can sit for only about fift een minut es before experiencing pain. Lut t rell has difficult y at t ending t o her own care, can do no house or yard work, and does not shop. She spends most of her day on a couch, and her hobbies include reading and wat ching t elevision. She spends t ime wit h ot hers but only wit h her husband, her daught er, and her parent s. 7 Lut t rell t est ified during t he administ rat ive hearing. See Transcript at 64-75. She was born on July 11, 1964, and was fift y-one years old at t he t ime of t he hearing. She can read, writ e, and perform basic mat hemat ics. She has previous work as a cert ified nurse assist ance. She cannot work, in part , because of her seizures, which she experiences approximat ely one t o t wo t imes a mont h. Lut t rell experiences pain in her wrist s and hands and has had surgery on her right wrist . The pain in her wrist s and hands causes her t o drop t hings. She also experiences daily pain in her right shoulder, back, and knees. She t akes hydrocodone for t he pain, and it helps relieve much of t he pain. She cannot st and, walk, or sit for any lengt h of t ime, and a bot t le of soda is about t he heaviest obj ect she can lift and/ or carry. She also experiences periods of depression and anxiet y t hat prevent her from leaving home. The ALJ found at st ep t wo of t he sequent ial evaluat ion process t hat Lut t rell has severe impairment s in t he form of seizures, lumbar spine degenerat ive disc disease, ost eoart hrit is/ degenerat ive j oint disease and art hralgias, obesit y, neuropat hy, hypert ension, and a depressive disorder/ anxiet y. He assessed her residual funct ional capacit y and found t hat “ beginning June 20, 2012, t hrough t he dat e last insured,” see Transcript at 29, she was capable of performing light work wit h t he following addit ional physical and ment al limit at ions: ... [Lut t rell] can perform no climbing of ladders, ropes or scaffolds and can have no exposure t o unprot ect ed height s or hazards in t he workplace. In addit ion, [she] cannot perform more t han frequent handling dut ies. Furt hermore, [she] is rest rict ed t o unskilled, specific vocat ional preparat ion (SVP) rat ing 1 or 2 j obs t hat can be learned wit hin 30 days and do not require more t han simple, rout ine, and repet it ive t asks and dut ies. Moreover, supervision needs t o be simple, direct and concret e. 8 See Transcript at 29-30. In making t he foregoing findings, t he ALJ gave great weight t o t he opinions of t he st at e agency medical professionals regarding Lut t rell’ s physical limit at ions. The ALJ did so because t heir opinions were support ed by t he record. The ALJ gave lit t le weight , t hough, t o Hollis’ opinions. Alt hough t he ALJ recognized t hat Hollis was a t reat ing source, t he ALJ discount ed Hollis’ opinions for t he following reasons: ... t he assessed rest rict ions were indicat ed t o apply first on April 28, 2016, well aft er t he dat e last insured. Moreover, t hough visit s t o Dr. Hollis did occur during t he relevant period, his t reat ment not es have very few physical examinat ion findings or obj ect ive evidence t o support his assessment . Furt her, t o t he ext ent t hat he assessed impairment s, he overall found [Lut t rell] st able and unremarkable ... Thus, his opinions appear t oo limit ing in light of his assessment s showing [her] t o be not overly limit ed. Furt her, t he good st abilit y and cont rol of COPD does not demonst rat e t hat t his impairment causes more t han minimal limit at ion [of] abilit y t o perform basic work act ivit ies; t hus, t he rest rict ions assessed by Dr. Hollis relat ed t o COPD are t oo limit ing based on t he evidence. Accordingly, due t o inconsist encies wit h his t reat ment not es, due t o his opinion focusing on a t ime period aft er t he relevant period, and due t o inadequat e explanat ion and support ing evidence for t he assessed rest rict ions, lit t le weight is assigned. See Transcript at 39-40. The ALJ did not have an occasion t o address Hollis’ opinions cont ained in his second Medical Source St at ement -Physical because t he document was signed approximat ely seven mont hs aft er t he ALJ’ s decision. 2 Wit h respect t o Hollis’ ment al limit at ions, t he ALJ discount ed t he opinions of t he st at e agency medical professionals. The ALJ also assigned lit t le weight t o Hest er’ s opinions. Alt hough t he ALJ recognized t hat Hest er was an examining source, t he ALJ discount ed Hest er’ s opinions for t he following reasons: 2 The Appeals Council considered the opinions on review but found them unpersuasive. 9 ... [Hest er’ s] opinions were rendered in February 2011, well before t he relevant period. Thus, alt hough t hey are assigned lit t le weight for hist orical purposes, great er weight cannot be assigned due t o t he lack of proximit y t o t he relevant period and [ot her considerat ions], including t he inconsist ency wit h t he evidence from t he relevant period showing lack of specialized care or at t empt s t o pursue specialized ment al healt h care, lack of significant change in medicat ion or request s for t rials of different medicat ions, lack of focus on ment al healt h issues during primary care visit s, and overall st abilit y and/ or lack of report s of sympt oms at primary care visit s. Furt her, t he opinions show int ernal inconsist encies as findings t hat she could remember 5 forward and 3 backward on digit span, had generally good fund of informat ion, remembered 3 unrelat ed obj ect s aft er 5 minut es, performed serial t hrees slowly but accurat ely, could add and subt ract single digit s 20 t o 1, and did well on similarit ies suggest lesser limit at ion t han he indicat ed. See Transcript at 38. The ALJ found at st ep four t hat Lut t rell cannot ret urn t o her past work but found at st ep five t hat t here is ot her work she can perform. He t hus concluded t hat she was not under a disabilit y at any t ime during t he relevant period. Lut t rell maint ains t hat t he ALJ failed t o give proper weight t o Hollis’ opinions. It is Lut t rell’ s posit ion t hat Hollis was a t reat ing physician who offered support for his opinions and, as a result , t he ALJ should have accorded t he opinions great er weight . Inst ead, t he ALJ accorded great weight t o t he opinions of t he st at e agency medical professionals, and Lut t rell maint ains t hat t he ALJ erred in doing so. “ [W]het her t he ALJ grant s a t reat ing physician’ s opinion[s] subst ant ial or lit t le weight , t he regulat ions ... provide t hat t he ALJ must ‘ always give good reasons’ for t he part icular weight given t o a t reat ing physician’ s evaluat ion.” See Singh v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 448, 452 (8t h Cir. 2000) [quot ing 20 C.F.R. 404. 1527(d)(2)]. In t his inst ance, t he ALJ gave good reasons for discount ing Hollis’ opinions and credit ing t he opinions of t he st at e agency medical professionals wit h respect t o Lut t rell’ s physical limit at ions. The Court so finds for t he following reasons. 10 First , subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole support s t he ALJ’ s finding t hat Hollis’ opinions were made well aft er t he dat e Lut t rell was last insured. Hollis signed t he first Medical Source St at ement -Physical on April 28, 2016, and represent ed t hat his assessment of Lut t rell’ s limit at ions was for t he period from April 28, 2016, t o April 28, 2017. Lut t rell’ s dat e last insured, t hough, was December 31, 2014, or approximat ely sixt een mont hs before Hollis signed t he document . The ALJ did not have t he benefit of Hollis’ second Medical Source St at ement Physical as it was signed aft er t he ALJ’ s decision. It is possible t o view t he document wit h some skept icism given Hollis’ represent at ion t hat Lut t rell’ s limit at ions have been present from June 1, 2011, t o “ indefinit ely.” In any event , his opinions in t he document can be discount ed because t hey are inconsist ent wit h his own not es, inconsist ent wit h t he medical t est ing, and inconsist ent wit h ot her evidence in t he record. Second, subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole support s t he ALJ’ s finding t hat Hollis’ opinions are inconsist ent wit h his own not es. The ALJ found t hat Hollis’ not es cont ain “ very few physical examinat ion findings or obj ect ive evidence t o support his assessment . Furt her, t o t he ext ent t hat [Hollis] assessed impairment s, he overall found [Lut t rell] st able and unremarkable.” A review of Hollis’ progress not es confirms t he ALJ findings. The not es reflect t hat Hollis credit ed Lut t rell’ s complaint s and prescribed medicat ions t hat largely reduced t he severit y of her sympt oms. For inst ance, he credit ed her complaint s of seizures, diagnosed pet it mal seizures, and prescribed medicat ions t hat included Dilant in and Keppra. Aft er he adj ust ed her medicat ion on January 14, 2014, she report ed lit t le seizure act ivit y at her subsequent visit s during t he relevant period. 11 It is t rue Hollis represent ed in a Treat ing Physician’ s Report for Seizure Disorder t hat Lut t rell’ s seizures involved a loss of consciousness and were accompanied by fat igue, confusion, and headaches. His represent at ions, t hough, were based solely on her self-report s. In any event , t he ALJ account ed for Lut t rell’ s seizures in assessing her residual funct ional capacit y. Third, Hollis’ opinions are inconsist ent wit h t he medical t est ing. The result s of a June of 2010 EEG were wit hin normal limit s. An MRI performed in March of 2011 was posit ive for a part ial t ear in her shoulder and minimal j oint effusion but lit t le else. The result s of a May of 2015 CT scan revealed only mild degenerat ive changes t o her bilat eral sacroiliac j oint s. X-rays were t aken of her wrist s and left knee in July of 2015, and t he result s revealed minimal t o mild ost eoart hrit ic changes in bot h of her wrist s and not hing remarkable in her left knee. Fourt h, Hollis’ opinions are inconsist ent wit h ot her evidence in t he record, specifically, t he opinions offered by t he st at e agency medical professionals. Those professionals generally agreed t hat Lut t rell could lift and/ or carry up t o t went y pounds occasionally and up t o t en pounds frequent ly, could st and and/ or walk for a t ot al of about six hours in an eight hour workday, could sit for a t ot al of about six hours in an eight hour workday, and should avoid exposure t o hazards. Lut t rell fault s t he ALJ for giving t oo much weight t o t he opinions of t he st at e agency medical professionals regarding Lut t rell’ s physical limit at ions. The opinions of non-t reat ing, non-examining physicians do not normally const it ut e subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole. See Vossen v. Ast rue, 612 F.3d 1011 (8t h Cir. 2010). Had t he ALJ in t his inst ance relied solely upon t he opinions of t he st at e agency medical 12 professionals in assessing Lut t rell’ s residual funct ional capacit y, t he Court would likely agree t hat t he ALJ erred. The record reflect s, t hough, t hat t heir opinions were but one of t he fact ors t he ALJ relied upon in assessing Lut t rell’ s residual funct ional capacit y. Moreover, t he ALJ could and did find t hat t heir opinions have support in t he record. In short , he did not err in weighing t heir opinions as he did. Lut t rell next maint ains t hat t he ALJ failed t o give proper weight t o Hest er’ s opinions regarding Lut t rell’ s ment al limit at ions. Alt hough Lut t rell concedes t hat Hest er was not a t reat ing physician, she maint ains t hat he was a consult at ive examiner who support ed his opinions. As a result , his opinions should have been given great er weight . Here, t he ALJ gave good reasons for discount ing Hest er’ s opinions wit h respect t o Lut t rell’ s ment al limit at ions. The Court so finds for t he following reasons. First , subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole support s t he ALJ’ s finding t hat Hest er’ s opinions were made well before t he relevant period. Hest er made his opinions following his ment al diagnost ic evaluat ion on February 22, 2011. The relevant period in t his case did not begin for anot her sixt een mont hs, i.e., on June 20, 2012. Second, subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole support s t he ALJ’ s finding t hat Hest er’ s opinions are inconsist ent wit h t he ot her evidence in t he record. The ALJ found t hat t he opinions were inconsist ent wit h t he evidence from t he relevant period showing a lack of specialized care or at t empt s t o pursue specialized ment al healt h care, a lack of significant change in medicat ion or request s for t rials of different medicat ions, a lack of focus on ment al healt h issues during primary care visit s, and overall st abilit y and/ or lack of report s of sympt oms at her primary care visit s. A review of t he record confirms t he ALJ findings. For inst ance, Lut t rell occasionally complained t o Hollis about 13 depression and anxiet y. He credit ed her complaint s and prescribed medicat ions t hat included Xanax and Celexa. The medicat ion appears t o have st abilized and/ or lessened t he severit y of her sympt oms. Moreover, t he ALJ could and did find t hat t hat Hest er’ s opinion shows some int ernal inconsist encies. As t he ALJ not ed, Hest er found t hat Lut t rell could remember 5 forward and 3 backward on digit span, had generally good “ fund of informat ion,” remembered 3 unrelat ed obj ect s aft er 5 minut es, performed serial t hrees slowly but accurat ely, could add and subt ract single digit s 20 t o 1, and did well on similarit ies “ suggest [ing] lesser limit at ion t han [Hest er] indicat ed.” Lut t rell fault s t he ALJ for giving t oo much weight t o t he opinions of t he st at e agency medical professionals regarding Lut t rell’ s ment al limit at ions. The Court cannot agree for t wo reasons. First , t he ALJ discount ed t heir opinions, giving t hem only “ part ial weight .” See Transcript at 38. Second, t heir opinions were but one of t he fact ors t he ALJ relied upon in assessing Lut t rell’ s residual funct ional capacit y. On t he basis of t he foregoing, t here is subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole t o support t he ALJ’ s findings. Lut t rell’ s complaint is dismissed, all request ed relief is denied, and j udgment will be ent ered for t he Commissioner. IT IS SO ORDERED t his 22nd day of January, 2018. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14
]]>
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.
