Gupton v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2016cv00174 - Document 17 (W.D. Ky. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lanny King on 6/9/2017; The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED. cc: Counsel (CDR)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Gupton v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY BOWLING GREEN DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. : CV 4 LLK KIMBERLY M. GUPTON . NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acti g Co issio er of Social Security PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This atte is efo e the Cou t o Plai tiff's o plai t seeki g judi ial e ie , pu sua t to U.“.C. § g , of the fi al de isio of the Co e efits. The fa t a d la su issio e de i g he lai fo “o ial “e u it disa ilit a ies of Plai tiff a d Defe da t a e at Do kets ha e o se ted to the ju isdi tio of the u de sig ed Magist ate Judge to dete a d . The pa ties i e this ase, ith a appeal l i g efo e the “i th Ci uit Cou t of Appeals. Do ket . Be ause the ad i ist ati e la judge’s ALJ’s de isio as suppo ted su sta tial e ide e i the ad i ist ati e e o d a d as i a o d ith appli a le legal sta da ds, the Cou t ill AFFIRM the Co issio e ’s fi al de isio a d DI“MI““ Plai tiff’s o plai t. Backgrou d facts a d procedural history I August , Plai tiff filed a appli atio fo disa ilit i su a e e efits. “he alleges that she e a e disa led o Ma h , . Ph si all , Plai tiff suffe s, a o g othe thi gs, f o e i al dege e ati e dis disease ith histo of dis e to a d fusio p o edu e, lu k phosis. Ad i ist ati e Re o d AR , p. a dege e ati e dis disease, tho a i a k loses, a d . Dockets.Justia.com A a of the lu a spi e f o Ma as i te p eted dege e ati e ha ges pa ti ula l L . AR, p. I O to e . , Plai tiff as e a i ed at the e uest of the Co “ues u , M.D. D . Lopez “ues u ’s a ati e epo t is at AR, pp. Ka a Gilke , M.D., as sho i g I Ja ua issio e Edga Lopez . , ased i pa t o the fi di gs of D s. Gilke a d Lopez “ues u , the o e a i i g state age p og a ph si ia , Do a “adle , o pleted o sig ed off o a Ph si al Residual Fu tio al Capa it RFC Assess e t, i di ati g that Plai tiff is a le to pe fo a ge of light o k. AR, pp. A MRI of the lu , a li ited . a spi e f o Jul as i te p eted Jaso White, M.D., as sho i g ulti le el h pe t ophi dis oge i disease, ost sig ifi a t at T L he e the e is a la ge dis he iatio esulti g i ild e t al ste osis. AR, p. I “epte e . afte the ad i ist ati e hea i g i August , Plai tiff o tai ed a o sultati e epo t f o eu osu geo Vaugha Alle , M.D. Ph si al e a i atio e ealed esse tiall o al fi di gs e ept Plai tiff has + k ee, a se t a kle, hi h Plai tiff i te p ets to ea that she e hi ited di i ished efle i the k ee a d a se t efle i the a kle. AR, p. Alle ’s i p essio as lo a k pai a d adi ula leg pai . AR, p. i je tio s E“Is . Id. His i te p etatio of the Jul ; Do ket , p. . D . . His pla as epidu al ste oid MRI as that Plai tiff has p ett sig ifi a t ultile el dege e ati e dis disease ith a i g deg ees of fo a i al patholog a d so e deg ee of a al a o i g. AR, p. . He did ot offe a opi io o e i g Plai tiff’s RFC. Additio all , D . Gilke fou d i i al s oliosis of the lu a spi e. The e is dis spa e a o i g, osteoph te fo atio a d dis oge i s le osis at L . The e is ilde dis spa e a o i g a d osteoph te fo atio at L a d L . The e a e fa et dege e ati e ha ges pa ti ula l at L “ . AR, p. . RFC is defi ed as the ost ou a still do despite ou li itatio s. C.F.R. § . a . Light o k i ol es lifti g o o e tha pou ds at a ti e ith f e ue t lifti g o a i g of o je ts eighi g up to pou ds. C.F.R. § . . The full a ge of light o k e ui es sta di g o alki g, off a d o , fo a total of app o i atel hou s of a hou o kda , ith i te itte t sitti g du i g the e ai i g ti e. “o ial “e u it Ruli g ““R , WL . Mo e spe ifi all : The T L le el de o st ates ode ate dis spa e a o i g ith a la ge ight pa a e t al dis he iatio ith dis ate ial easu i g . i a io audal di e sio i AP di e sio a d does o ta t the a te io a gi of the o d a d does esult i displa e e t ithout sig ifi a t o d o p essio . AP a al dia ete is a o ed to . . Fo a e a e pate t. AR, p. . The ALJ fou d that, although she a a ilit to pe fo a sig ifi a t u ot pe fo he past ele a t o k, Plai tiff etai s the e of light jo s i the atio al e o o . AR, p. . I fi di g that Plai tiff has a RFC fo light o k, the ALJ ga e g eat eight to D . “adle ’s RFC Assess e t. AR, p. . I gi i g g eat eight to D . “adle ’s RFC, the ALJ o se ed that the o je ti e fi di gs [i ludi g the a a d MRI fi di gs] ha e ge e all ee ild. Id. Alte ati el , the ALJ fou d that a sig ifi a t u e o o e of jo s a e a aila le i the atio al e e if [Plai tiff is] li ited to sede ta o k a d e e if [she is] li ited to o fo ea hi g. AR, p. a d . Plai tiff’s argu e t ide tifies, at orst, a har less error. Plai tiff a gues that the ALJ’s fi di g that she a pe fo D . “adle ’s Ja ua Jul light o k ased o a epta e of RFC Assess e t is u suppo ted i light of the su se ue t MRI fi di gs f o a d D . Alle ’s fi di gs f o “epte e No p i iple of ad i ist ati e la o o . o se se e ui es us to e a d a ase i uest of a pe fe t opi io u less the e is easo to elie e that e a d ight lead to a diffe e t esult. Kor ecky v. Co ’r, F. App’ , th Ci . uoti g Fisher v. Sec’y, F. d , th Ci . . The ALJ fou d, i the alte ati e, that a sig ifi a t u e o o e of jo s a e a aila le i the atio al e e if [Plai tiff is] li ited to sede ta o k a d e e if [she is] li ited to o fo ea hi g. AR, p. a d . Assu i g fo the sake of a gu e t that o e a epts Plai tiff’s a gu e t that the fi di gs f o the MRI a d D . Alle p e lude light o k, Plai tiff has eithe alleged o sho these fi di gs p e lude sede ta o k ith o fo ide tifies, at o st, a ha that a d ea hi g. Plai tiff’s a gu e t, the efo e, less e o . “ede ta o k i ol es lifti g o o e tha pou ds at a ti e ith o asio al lifti g/ a i g of a ti les like do ket files, ledge s, a d s all tools. C.F.R. § . a . The full a ge of sede ta o k e ui es sitti g fo a total of app o i atel hou s of a hou o kda , ith sta di g/ alki g du i g the e ai i g ti e. “o ial “e u it Ruli g ““R , WL . Plai tiff’s argu e t is ithout erit. As i di ated a o e, Plai tiff’s a gu e t fo uses o the ALJ’s elia e o D . “adle ’s RFC Assess e t a d the fa t that it did ot take i to a ou t the su se ue t fi di gs f o the MRI a d D . Alle . The a gu e t is ithout e it fo fou easo s. Fi st, it is ot appa e t that the MRI fi di gs e e sig ifi a tl diffe e t f o o o e li iti g tha the a fi di gs, a d D . Alle ’s fi di gs a e o siste t ith D . “adle ’s. “e o d, e ept fo D . “alde ’s opi io , the e is o edi al opi io i the ad i ist ati e e o d o e i g Plai tiff’s RFC. Plai tiff a ies the u de of p o i g a disa li g RFC. “ee . a I ge e al, ou ha e to p o e to us that ou a e li d o disa led a d C.F.R. §§ . a I ge e al, ou a e espo si le fo p o idi g the e ide e e ill use to ake a fi di g a out ou [RFC] . Thi d, [t]he e ill al a s e a gap et ee the ti e the age e pe ts e ie the e o d a d gi e thei opi io … a d the ti e the hea i g de isio is issued. Kelly v. Co th Ci . ’r, F. App’ , . A se t a lea sho i g that the e e ide e e de s the p io opi io u te a le, the e e fa t that a gap e ists does ot a a t the e pe se a d dela of a judi ial e a d. Id. Plai tiff ust sho that the e ide e su itted afte the state age assess e t … fatall u de i e[s] the Neithe Plai tiff o this Cou t is ualified to i te p et a edi al fi di gs i fu tio al te s. See Fe sterer v. Co ’r, No. , WL , at * E.D. Mi h. Aug. , uoti g Nguye v. Sec’y, F. d , st Ci . Re ie i g ou ts a e si pl ot ualified to i te p et a edi al data i fu tio al te s . Although the ad i ist ati e e o d o tai s a edi al fi di gs, the a e ot a su stitute fo a edi al opi io . See Wycoff v. Co ’r, No. : , WL , at * “.D. Ohio No . , uoti g C.F.R. § . a T eat e t otes do ot ualif as edi al opi io s u less the efle t judg e ts a out the atu e a d se e it of ou i pai e t s , i ludi g ou s pto s, diag osis a d p og osis, hat ou a still do despite i pai e t s , a d ou ph si al o e tal est i tio s . a u a of that assess e t. Id. The fi di gs f o the MRI a d D . Alle do ot fatall u de i e the a u a of D . “adle ’s assess e t. Fou th, Plai tiff esse tiall asks the Cou t to e eigh the e ide e the ALJ o side ed a d ea h a diffe e t o lusio o e i g he RFC. E e if the Cou t e e i li ed to ea h su h a o lusio , this ould ot e essa il a a t a distu a e of the ALJ's de isio . See Blakley v. Co ’r, F. d , th Ci . The su sta tial e ide e sta da d ... p esupposes that the e is a zo e of hoi e ithi hi h the de isio ake s a go eithe a , ithout i te fe e e the ou ts . Plai tiff’s re ai i g argu e ts are u persuasi e. Plai tiff a gues that the ALJ e ed i lai i g to gi e g eat eight to D . “adle ’s fi di gs, et o itti g D . “adle ’s fi di gs that she a o l o asio all ala e a d eeds to a oid o e t ated e posu e to e t e e heat, hu idit , a d i atio . AR, pp. e ause the jo s the ALJ fou d Plai tiff a pe fo , , a d . A e o as ha less do ot e ui e ala i g o e posu e to heat, hu idit , a d i atio . Fi all , Plai tiff a gues that the ALJ e ed i atte pti g to suppo t a epta e of D . “adle ’s fi di gs efe e e to he testi o that she e pe ie ed i p o e e t i he e i al pai si e su ge a d that she pe fo s a a iet of dail a ti ities. AR, p. . I light of Plai tiff’s u de of p oof a d the a se e of a o peti g edi al opi io o e i g he RFC, the ALJ’s easo s fo gi i g g eat eight to D . “adle ’s opi io e e ade uate. While the ALJ’s de isio does ot e pli itl efe e e D . Alle ’s fi di gs, [a] ALJ eed ot dis uss e e pie e of e ide e i the e o d fo his de isio to sta d. Thacker v. Co ’r, F. App’ , th Ci . . The e as o e e si le e o e ause D . Alle ’s fi di gs do ot p e lude light a d/o sede ta o k. The jo s i uestio a e lea e , eighe , la ele / a ke . The e ui e e ts of these jo s a e des i ed i the Di tio a of O upatio al Titles DOT . , WL ; . , WL ; a d . , WL . ORDER The efo e, the fi al de isio of the Co issio e is AFFIRMED, a d Plai tiff’s o plai t is DI“MI““ED. June 9, 2017
]]>
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.
