Oiler v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2018cv00119 - Document 21 (W.D. Ky. 2019)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lanny King on 5/16/2019. Because Plaintiff's arguments are unpersuasive and the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence, the Commissioner's final decision is hereby AFFIRMED, and Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED. cc: Counsel (CDF)

Download PDF

Oiler v. Commissioner of Social Security THOMAS L. OILER Doc. 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY BOWLING GREEN DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. : CV LLK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acti g Co issio er of Social Security 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 issio e de i g his lai fo “o ial “e u it disa ilit e efits. Plai tiff’s e o a du i suppo t of otio fo judg e t o the pleadi gs is at Do ket # ; the Co issio e ’s espo si e fa t/la su a is at Do ket # ; a d the atte is ipe fo dete i atio . The pa ties ha e o se ted to the ju isdi tio of the u de sig ed Magist ate Judge to dete i e this ase, ith a appeal l i g efo e the “i th Ci uit Cou t of Appeals. Do ket # . The Ad i ist ati e La Judge ALJ de ied Plai tiff’s disa ilit lai at the fifth a d fi al step of the se ue tial e aluatio p o ess ased o a fi di g that he etai s the a ilit to pe fo u e of jo s i the atio al e o o su h as light e h asse helpe . Ad i ist ati e Re o d AR at le , i fo a sig ifi a t atio le k, a d offi e . Plai tiff p ese ts t o a gu e ts – the fi st ased o his e tal li itatio s a d the se o d ased o his ph si al li itatio s. Be ause eithe a gu e t is pe suasi e a d the ALJ’s de isio is suppo ted e ide e i the ad i ist ati e e o d, the Cou t ill AFFIRM the Co su sta tial issio e ’s fi al de isio a d DI“MI““ Plai tiff’s o plai t. Plai tiff’s first argu e t Rega di g his e tal li itatio s, o Fe ua , e a i ed Plai tiff at the e uest of the Co issio e . AR at , ps hologist G eg V. L . D . L h, Ph.D., h o luded that Plai tiff is slightl li ited i th ee fu tio al a eas: Dockets.Justia.com E . [ ] The lai a t’s apa it to u de sta d, e e e , a d a out i st u tio s to a ds pe fo a e of si ple epetiti e tasks see s affe ted the i pai e t ith slight li itatio s oted. [ ] His a ilit to tole ate st ess a d p essu e of da to da e plo e t see s affe ted the i pai e t ith slight li itatio s oted. … [ ] His apa it to espo d app op iatel to supe isio , o o ke s, a d o k p essu es i a o k setti g see s affe ted the i pai e t ith slight li itatio s oted. F AR at . I his itte de isio , the ALJ stated that I gi e g eat eight to this assess e t [i.e., E . F]. AR at . Plai tiff’s fi st a gu e t is that the ALJ’s RFC [ esidual fu tio al apa it ] dete i atio is ot suppo ted su sta tial e ide e as the ALJ failed to i o po ate e tal li itatio s f o a opi io [f o D . L h] [ hi h the ALJ stated he had] gi e g eat eight. Do ket # L h’s fi di gs at AR a d the ALJ’s de isio at AR at efe i g to D . . Ad ittedl , the ALJ’s RFC fi di g fi di g o. o tai s o e tal li itatio . AR at Ne e theless, a o atio al e pe t's testi o i espo se to h potheti al uestio s . a se e as su sta tial e ide e suppo ti g a ALJ’s fifth step de ial de isio so lo g as the uestio s a u atel po t a the Plai tiff’s a tual ph si al a d e tal li itatio s. Ealy v. Co th Ci . . Ho e e , i fo ’r of Soc. Sec., F. d , ulati g h potheti als, a ALJ is ot o liged to i lude u su sta tiated o plai ts, a d ge e all ust i o po ate o l those li itatio s the ALJ dee s to e edi le. Bla ke ship v. Co ’r, F. App’ , th Ci . itatio o itted . I this ase, the o atio al e pe t VE testified that a i di idual ho is apa le of si ple, outi e tasks ut a eed to e off task sho t of e ui i g spe ial a o e e hou a pe fo the jo s of light e h asse le , i fo odatio up to i utes atio le k, a d offi e helpe . AR at , . Plai tiff ites a d the Cou t fi ds o autho it fo the p opositio that a i di idual ho is o l slightl li ited i the th ee fu tio al a eas ide tified D . L outi e tasks AR at h AR at is ot apa le of si ple, a d/o is ot apa le of satisf i g the e ui e e ts of the jo s ide tified the VE. The efo e, Plai tiff’s fi st a gu e t is u pe suasi e i light of the o atio al testi o . Plai tiff’s seco d argu e t Rega di g his ph si al i pai e ts, o Ma , o pleted the Ph si al Capa ities E aluatio fo , Plai tiff’s t eati g ph si ia , Ma is A. C aig, . AR at . A o g othe thi gs, D . C aig fou d that Plai tiff: Ca sit fo less tha hou s total i a hou o kda a d a sta d/ alk fo less tha hou s total i a hou o kda ; Ca o l o asio all lift f o the floo a d a ut e e pou ds o o e; Ca o l o asio all use his ha ds/fi ge s/a situatio ; a d i pai Would likel e ui e e ts/t eat e t. E . e ause the e e AR at F AR at s i a o petiti e o k o e tha ti es a . The ALJ ga e D . C aig’s fi di gs E . o th due to F little eight ot ell ited a d [D . C aig] otes t eat e t o l fo osteoa th itis at the k ee. efe e i g AR at ith the o o k a se es of up to pou ds . Additio all , the ALJ fou d D . C aig’s fi di gs to e ot o siste t … al gait fi di gs … as ell as the lai a t’s o testi o . Id. Plai tiff’s se o d a d fi al a gu e t is that the ALJ’s RFC [i.e., esidual fu tio al apa it dete i atio ] is u suppo ted su sta tial e ide e, as he failed to follo the t eati g ph si ia ule i eighi g the opi io of D . C aig. Do ket # at efe e i g D . C aig’s fi di gs at AR at . The so alled t eati g ph si ia ule p o ides, i pa t, that [g]e e all , e gi e o e eight to edi al opi io s f o ou t eati g sou es. C.F.R. § D . C aig i di ated his fi di gs . . pla i g he k a ks o a fo , ith o a o pa i g e pla atio . The o l e pla atio D . C aig gi es is that Plai tiff’s diag osis is k ee OA [i.e., osteoa th itis] a d that his p og osis is had TKR [i.e., total k ee epla e e t]. AR at . The ALJ p ope l ga e D . C aig’s fi di gs little eight e ause the e e ot ell ited a d la ked suppo ted. AR at . See Ellars v. Co ’r, Fed App’ , th Ci . p ope l gi e little eight to a t eati g ph si ia ’s he k off fo [A]d i ist ati e la judges a of fu tio al li itatio s that did ot ite li i al test esults, o se atio s, o othe o je ti e fi di gs. itatio o itted ; Shepard v. Co Fed App’ , th Ci . ’r, [T]he ALJ had good easo to dis ou t D . Ta i ’s opi io , hi h o sisted la gel of o e o d a s e s, i les, a d he k a ks. ; Her a dez v. Co , th Ci . 'r, F. App' [I]t is ea l i possi le to a al ze hethe [the ph si ia ’s fi di gs a e suppo ted] e ause [the] he k o a al sis is ot a o pa ied a e pla atio . …. We ha e p e iousl de li ed to gi e sig ifi a t eight to udi e ta i di atio s that la k a a o pa i g e pla atio . . Order Be ause Plai tiff’s a gu e ts a e u pe suasi e a d the ALJ’s de isio is suppo ted su sta tial e ide e, the Co issio e ’s fi al de isio is he e AFFIRMED, a d Plai tiff’s o plai t is DI“MI““ED. May 16, 2019

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.