Lucas v. SSA, No. 7:2009cv00096 - Document 12 (E.D. Ky. 2010)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Court finds ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence on record. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plas Motion for Summary Judgment be OVERRULED and Dfts Motion for Summary Judgment be SUSTAINED. Signed by Judge Henry R. Wilhoit, Jr on 2/8/2010.(TDA)cc: COR

Download PDF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION at PIKEVILLE Civil Action No. 09-96-HRW JEFFREY LUCAS, v. PLAINTIFF, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MICHAEL J. ASTRUE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT. Plaintiff has brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §405(g) to challenge a final decision of the Defendant denying Plaintiffs application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits. The Court having reviewed the record in this case and the dispositive motions filed by the parties, and being otherwise sufficiently advised, for the reasons set forth herein, finds that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge is supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff filed his current application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits on May 3,2006, alleging disability beginning on August 1, 2005, due to "black lung, pain in his back and neck, left knee pain and heart." (Tr. 152). This application was denied initially and on reconsideration. On September 10,2007, an administrative hearing was conducted by Administrative Law Judge Andrew Chwalibog (hereinafter "ALJ"), wherein Plaintiff, accompanied by counsel, testified. At the hearing a vocational expert also testified. The ALJ held two supplemental hearings in order to develop the record, on February 13, 2008 and October 16,2008. Gina Baldwin, a vocational expert (hereinafter "VE") testified at the most recent hearing. At the hearing, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.920, the ALJ performed the following five-step sequential analysis in order to determine whether the Plaintiff was disabled: Step 1: If the claimant is performing substantial gainful work, he is not disabled. Step 2: If the claimant is not performing substantial gainful work, his impairment(s) must be severe before he can be found to be disabled based upon the requirements in 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(b). Step 3: If the claimant is not performing substantial gainful work and has a severe impairment (or impairments) that has lasted or is expected to last for a continuous period of at least twelve months, and his impairments (or impairments) meets or medically equals a listed impairment contained in Appendix 1, Subpart P, Regulation No.4, the claimant is disabled without further inquiry. Step 4: If the claimant's impairment (or impairments) does not prevent him 2 from doing his past relevant work, he is not disabled. Step 5: Even if the claimant's impairment or impairments prevent him from performing his past relevant work, if other work exists in significant numbers in the national economy that accommodates his residual functional capacity and vocational factors, he is not disabled. On November 6, 2008, the ALl issued his decision finding that Plaintiffwas not disabled. Plaintiff was 48 years old at the time of the hearing decision. He has a high school education. His past relevant work experience consists of work as a coal miner. At Step 1 of the sequential analysis, the ALl found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date of disability (Tr. 11). The ALl then determined, at Step 2, that Plaintiff suffers from pulmonary disease and mild coronary artery disease with angina pectoris, which he found to be "severe" within the meaning of the Regulations (Tr. 11-14). At Step 3, the ALl found that Plaintiff's impairments did not meet or medically equal any of the listed impairments (Tr. 14). In doing so, the ALl specifically considered listings 3.00 and 4.00 (Tr. 14). The ALl further found that Plaintiff could not return to his past relevant work (Tr. 21) but determined that he has the residual functional capacity ("RFC") 3 to perform a range of light work with restrictions as set forth in the hearing decision (Tr. 14-21). The ALJ finally concluded that these jobs exist in significant numbers in the national and regional economies, as identified by the VE (Tr. 21-22). Accordingly, the ALJ found Plaintiff not to be disabled at Step 5 of the sequential evaluation process. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff s request for review and adopted the ALl's decision as the final decision of the Commissioner on May 22, 2009 (Tr. 1 4). Plaintiff thereafter filed this civil action seeking a reversal of the Commissioner's decision. Both parties have filed Motions for Summary Judgment [Docket Nos. 8 and 11] and this matter is ripe for decision. III. ANALYSIS The essential issue on appeal to this Court is whether the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence. "Substantial evidence" is defined as "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion;" it is based on the record as a whole and must take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight. Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383, 387 (6 th Cir. 1984). If the Commissioner's decision is supported by 4 substantial evidence, the reviewing Court must affirm. Kirk v. Secretary ofHealth and Human Services, 667 F.2d 524,535 (6 th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 957 (1983). "The court may not try the case de novo nor resolve conflicts in evidence, nor decide questions of credibility." Bradley v. Secretary ofHealth and Human Services, 862 F.2d 1224, 1228 (6 th Cir. 1988). Finally, this Court must defer to the Commissioner's decision "even if there is substantial evidence in the record that would have supported an opposite conclusion, so long as substantial evidence supports the conclusion reached by the ALJ." Key v. Callahan, 109 F.3d 270,273 (6th Cir.1997). On appeal, Plaintiff contends that the hypothetical posed to the VE by the ALJ was incomplete and, thus, not supported by substantial evidence. It is well established that the hypothetical question is proper where it accurately describes a claimant's functional limitations. Varley v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 820 F.2d 777, 779. (6th Cir. 1987). This rule is necessarily tempered by the requirement that the ALJ incorporate only those limitations which he or she finds to be credible. Casey v. Secretary ofHealth and Human Services, 987 F.2d 1230,1235 (6 th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff specifically argues that the hypothetical "lacked sufficient specificity" because it did not mention each and every opinion of Emily McGuire, 5 Psy.D. It appears that Plaintiff misunderstands the ALl's obligations. The ALJ is not required to compose a laundry list, so to speak, of each and every limitation but, rather, fully incorporate the Plaintiffs limitations. In this case, in addition to summarizing the limitations found by Dr. McGuire, the ALJ expressly incorporated her report by specifically referencing the exhibit in his hypothetical to the VE. Moreover, the VE testified that she reviewed the exhibit file. The Court finds that Plaintiff s argument, the ALJ developed a complete and accurate assessment of his mental limitations. In this case, the hypothetical posed accurately portray the RFC as formulated based upon the objective medical evidence. As such, the Court finds that the ALl's RFC and findings based upon the VE' s testimony are supported by substantial evidence in the record. III. CONCLUSION The Court finds that the ALl's decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment be OVERRULED and the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be SUSTAINED. 6 A judgment in favor of the Defendant will be entered contemporaneously herewith. This L day of February, 2010. Herrry~it, 7 Jr., Senior Judge

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.