Zitano v. Social Security Administration Commissioner, No. 4:2016cv04031 - Document 14 (W.D. Ark. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on May 15, 2017. (cnn)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Zitano v. Social Security Administration Commissioner Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION DANNA ZITANO vs. PLAINTIFF Civil No. 4:16-cv-04031 NANCY A. BERRYHILL Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION Danna Zitano (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant to § 205(g) of Title II of the Social Security Act (“The Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2010), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denying her application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”), Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”), and a period of disability under Titles II and XVI of the Act. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge to conduct any and all proceedings in this case, including conducting the trial, ordering the entry of a final judgment, and conducting all post-judgment proceedings. ECF No. 5.1 Pursuant to this authority, the Court issues this memorandum opinion and orders the entry of a final judgment in this matter. 1. Background: Plaintiff protectively filed an application for DIB and SSI on June 4, 2013. (Tr. 37). Plaintiff alleged she was disabled due to due to hepatitis C, headaches, fatigue, high blood pressure, sleep issues, cervical nerve damage, and injuries to her left shoulder, elbow, hip, and knee. (Tr. 181). 1 The docket numbers for this case are referenced by the designation “ECF No. ____” The transcript pages for this case are referenced by the designation “Tr.” 1 Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiff alleged an onset date of September 15, 2011. (Tr. 37). These applications were denied initially and again upon reconsideration. (Tr. 37, 81-100, 159-164). Thereafter, Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on her applications and this hearing request was granted. (Tr. 111). Plaintiff’s administrative hearing was held on October 21, 2014. (Tr. 54-80). Plaintiff was present and was represented by Greg Giles at this hearing. Id. Plaintiff and Vocational Expert (“VE”) Susan Johnson testified at this hearing. Id. At the time of this hearing, Plaintiff was fiftythree (53) years old and had completed the eleventh grade. (Tr. 63). On January 29, 2015, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff’s application for SSI. (Tr. 37-49). In this decision, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity (“SGA”) since June 14, 2013. (Tr. 39, Finding 1). The ALJ also determined Plaintiff had the severe impairment of degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine with radiculopathy, and multiple trauma with fracture of her lower limb and mild residual lower extremity effects. (Tr. 40, Finding 2). The ALJ then determined Plaintiff’s impairments did not meet or medically equal the requirements of any of the Listing of Impairments in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Regulations No. 4 (“Listings”). (Tr. 44, Finding 3). In this decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and determined her RFC. (Tr. 44-48). First, the ALJ indicated he evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and found her claimed limitations were not entirely credible. Id. Second, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the RFC to perform the full range of light work. (Tr. 44-45, Finding 4). The ALJ then evaluated Plaintiff’s Past Relevant Work (“PRW”). (Tr. 48, Finding 5). The ALJ found Plaintiff was capable of performing her PRW as a cashier. Id. Given this, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not been under a disability as defined in the Act since June 14, 2013. (Tr. 2 49, Finding 6). Thereafter, Plaintiff requested the Appeals Council review the ALJ’s unfavorable decision. (Tr. 33). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.968. The Appeals Council declined to review this unfavorable decision. (Tr. 1-7). On April 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed the present appeal. ECF No. 1. The Parties consented to the jurisdiction of this Court on April 14, 2016. ECF No. 5. Both Parties have filed appeal briefs. ECF Nos. 11, 13. This case is now ready for decision. 2. Applicable Law: In reviewing this case, this Court is required to determine whether the Commissioner’s findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2006); Ramirez v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 576, 583 (8th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance of the evidence, but it is enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support the Commissioner’s decision. See Johnson v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1145, 1147 (8th Cir. 2001). As long as there is substantial evidence in the record that supports the Commissioner’s decision, the Court may not reverse it simply because substantial evidence exists in the record that would have supported a contrary outcome or because the Court would have decided the case differently. See Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2001). If, after reviewing the record, it is possible to draw two inconsistent positions from the evidence and one of those positions represents the findings of the ALJ, the decision of the ALJ must be affirmed. See Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065, 1068 (8th Cir. 2000). It is well established that a claimant for Social Security disability benefits has the burden of proving his or her disability by establishing a physical or mental disability that lasted at least one year and that prevents him or her from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. See Cox v. Apfel, 160 F.3d 1203, 1206 (8th Cir. 1998); 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act defines 3 a “physical or mental impairment” as “an impairment that results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(3), 1382(3)(c). A plaintiff must show that his or her disability, not simply his or her impairment, has lasted for at least twelve consecutive months. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). To determine whether the adult claimant suffers from a disability, the Commissioner uses the familiar five-step sequential evaluation. He determines: (1) whether the claimant is presently engaged in a “substantial gainful activity”; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment that significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities; (3) whether the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals a presumptively disabling impairment listed in the regulations (if so, the claimant is disabled without regard to age, education, and work experience); (4) whether the claimant has the Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) to perform his or her past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant cannot perform the past work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove that there are other jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform. See Cox, 160 F.3d at 1206; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)-(f). The fact finder only considers the plaintiff’s age, education, and work experience in light of his or her RFC if the final stage of this analysis is reached. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (2003). 3. Discussion: In her appeal brief, Plaintiff claims the ALJ’s disability determination is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. ECF No. 11, Pg. 4-19. Specifically, Plaintiff claims the ALJ erred: (1) in failing to find Plaintiff met a Listing, (2) in the RFC determination of Plaintiff, and (3) in failing to give proper treatment to the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physician. Id. In response, 4 the Defendant argues the ALJ did not err in any of her findings. ECF No. 13. Because this Court finds the ALJ erred in the treatment of the opinions of a treating physician, this Court will only address this issue. Social Security Regulations and case law state that a treating physician's opinion will be granted “controlling weight,” provided it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” See SSR 96-2p; Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010, 1012-13 (8th Cir. 2000)(citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). An ALJ is required to give good reasons for the particular weight given to a treating physician’s evaluation. See Prosch, 201 F.3d at1013 (citing 20 C.F.R § 404.1527(d)(2), and SSR 96-2p). An ALJ may disregard the opinion of a treating physician only where other medical assessments “are supported by better or more thorough medical evidence,” or where a treating physician renders inconsistent opinions that undermine the credibility of such opinions. Id. at 1013 (quoting Rogers v. Chater, 118 F.3d 600, 602 (8th Cir. 1997), and Cruze v. Chater, 85 F.3d 1320, 1324-25 (8th Cir. 1996)). Plaintiff had been treated by Dr. Michael Young, of the Prescott Family Clinic, since December 9, 2013. (Tr. 417-424). On September 23, 2014, Dr. Young prepared a medical source statement. (Tr. 292-296). In this statement, Dr. Young stated Plaintiff could lift 10 pounds occasionally, no weight frequently, stand or walk less than two hours during an 8-hour workday and sit with normal breaks for about three hours out of an 8-hour workday. Id. Dr. Young also indicated Plaintiff could not do a full time competitive job that required activity on a sustained basis and would miss more than three times a month because of impairments. Id. The ALJ gave no significant weight to Dr. Young’s opinions. (Tr. 47-48). In making this 5 determination, the ALJ found Dr. Young answered “yes” to the question that asks if Plaintiff can do a full time competitive job that requires activity on a sustained basis thus indicating Plaintiff can sustain work in a competitive work environment. Id. The ALJ’s reasoning in this regard is wrong. In fact, Dr. Young found Plaintiff could not do a full time competitive job that required activity on a sustained basis. The ALJ has the responsibility to determine which findings are inconsistent and which opinions should be given greater weight than other opinions. See Brown v. Astrue, 611 F.3d 941, 951-52. However, when an ALJ determines that a treating physician’s opinion should be discounted, “he should give good reasons for doing so.” Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). In this matter, the ALJ erred in discounting Dr. Young’s findings. See Brown, 611 F.3d at 951-52. Substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s decision of Plaintiff being not disabled because the ALJ failed to properly analyze the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physician. Because the ALJ did not properly review the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physician, this case should be reversed and remanded for proper review and analysis of these opinions. 4. Conclusion: Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that the decision of the ALJ, denying benefits to Plaintiff, is not supported by substantial evidence and should be reversed and remanded. A judgment incorporating these findings will be entered pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52 and 58. ENTERED this 15th day of May 2017. /s/ Barry A. Bryant HON. BARRY A. BRYANT U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6
]]>
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.
