Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2018cv00132 - Document 17 (W.D. Ky. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lanny King on 7/8/2019. The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED. cc:counsel (JWM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security JOHNNY D. SMITH Doc. 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY BOWLING GREEN DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. : 8 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 e efits. The fa t a d la su issio e de i g his 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 appeal l i g efo e the “i th Ci uit Cou t of Appeals. Do ket # a d . The pa ties i e this ase, ith a . Be ause Plai tiff’s th ee a gu e ts a e u pe suasi e a d the Ad i ist ati e La Judge’s ALJ’s de isio is suppo ted su sta tial e ide e, the Cou t ill AFFIRM the Co issio e ’s fi al de isio a d DI“MI““ Plai tiff’s o plai ts. The ALJ’s decisio The ALJ fou d that Plai tiff suffe s f o the follo i g se e e, o o atio all sig ifi a t, i pai e ts: status post ight f o t a ioto a d su total ese tio , histo of al ohol a use, dep essi e diso de , a iet , dege e ati e dis disease of the lu [Ad i ist ati e Re o d AR at .] These i pai a spi e a d o ga i e tal diso de s. e ts p e lude Plai tiff f o pe fo i g his past ele a t o k as a e hea fu itu e o e / la o e se iskilled a d light s all usi ess o la o e skilled . [AR at suffe s seizu es, he .] Plai tiff’s ph si al i pai ust a oid li e ha i al pa ts, a d ope ati g o e / e ts est i t hi to light o k, ut, e ause he i g ladde s / opes / s affolds, u p ote ted heights, e ial ehi les. [AR at .] Plai tiff’s e tal i pai o i g e ts li it hi to si ple, outi e tasks a d de isio s, o e t o hou seg e ts, ith o o e tha o asio al o ta t Dockets.Justia.com ith the pu li . [Id.] Plai tiff is ot disa led e ause he etai s the a ilit to pe fo of jo s i the atio al e o o lea i g/ ustodial. [AR at su h as light e h asse l , a sig ifi a t u e eighi g/ easu i g, a d .] Plai tiff’s first argu e t Plai tiff akes th ee a gu e ts. Fi st, he a gues that his lo gast oi testi al issues eets o e uals the li i al ite ia of “e tio . the so alled Listi g of edi al i pai ite ia of a listed i pai eight asso iated of Appe di of the egulatio s e ts . Plai tiff a ies the u de of p o i g that the li i al e t a e satisfied, a d this u de is st i tl o st ued e ause the Listi g ep ese ts a auto ati s ee i g i of a i pai e t as pe se disa li g i depe de tl of a othe edi al o o atio al o side atio . See Se ' of Health & Hu a Servi es v. )e le , A i pai e t that a ifests o l so e of [a listed i pai se e el , does ot ualif . ; Ela e rel. Gola v. Co 'r of So . Se ., U.“. p o ides that the follo i g edi al i pai , e t's] ite ia, o atte ho F. d , th Ci . It is i suffi ie t that a lai a t o es lose to eeti g the e ui e e ts of a listed i pai Listi g § . ith e t. . e t is pe se disa li g: Weight loss due to a digestive disorder despite o ti ui g t eat e t as p es i ed, ith BMI [ od ass i de ] of less tha . al ulated o at least t o e aluatio s at least da s apa t ithi a o se uti e o th pe iod. Listi g § . , C.F.R. Pa t , “u pa t P, Appe di itali s i origi al . Plai tiff ites a d the Cou t fi ds o e ide e i the ad i ist ati e e o d that he had a BMI of less tha foot, . . Plai tiff’s lo est eight of e o d as i Ma i hes tall a d eighed Plai tiff’s BMI as et ee . ]; a d i Ju e , it as pou ds, esulti g i a BMI of kg/ a d . . [AR at [AR at , . [AR at . kg/ .] He is i hes . [Id.] I Fe ua ]; i August , it as . , [AR at ]. Additio all , Plai tiff fails to ide tif e ide e of p es i ed t eat e t fo his lo eight o ditio as e ui ed the Listi g. The efo e, Plai tiff has failed to p o e that his lo eight o ditio satisfies the e ui e e ts of Listi g § . . Plai tiff’s seco d argu e t Plai tiff’s se o d a gu e t is ased o the fi di gs of ps hologist G eg L , D . L h e a i ed Plai tiff at the e uest of the Co issio e . D . L h fou d, a o g othe thi gs, that Plai tiff’s a ilit to tole ate st ess a d p essu e of da to da e plo e tal i pai to D . L e ts, ith ode ate to a ked li itatio s oted. [AR at h, Ph.D. I O to e e t is affe ted his .] Additio all , a o di g h, Plai tiff’s 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 is affe ted, of D . L ith ode ate to a ked li itatio s oted. [Id.] I Fe ua h’s fi di gs a d the e o d as a hole, the Co issio e ’s o e a i i g p og a ps hologist, H. Tho pso P out, Ph.D., opi ed that Plai tiff has o o e tha a fu tio al a ea. [AR at , , i light .] The ALJ ga e pa tial eight to D . L ode ate li itatio i h’s fi di gs a d g eat eight to D . P out’s fi di gs e ause: D . P out’s assess e t is o siste t ith the e o d as a hole, D . P out is fa ilia ith a d he ased his o lusio o the e ide e as a hole a d o [Plai tiff’s] asse tio s, a d E ide e e ei ed i to e ide e at the hea i g le el did ot di i ish o alte [D . P out’s] fi di gs. [AR at .] Plai tiff a gues that the ALJ e ed i ot adopti g the The a gu e t is u pe suasi e fo t o easo s. Fi st, D . L suffe s f o a a ked li itatio . I fi di g a ked li itatio s fou d h did ot u a D . L h. iguousl fi d that Plai tiff ode ate to a ked li itatio s, it is u lea if D . L h ea t that Plai tiff’s li itatio s: Fall et ee ode ate a d a ked, A e so eti es ode ate a d so eti es a ked, o D . L h la ked ade uate li i al i fo atio to sa hethe Plai tiff’s li itatio s a e ode ate o a ked. “e o d, assu i g fo the sake of a gu e t that D . P out’s fi di gs a e e essa il i o siste t ith D . L h’s fi di gs, Plai tiff ites a d the Cou t fi ds o asis fo o ludi g that the ALJ a used his dis etio i p efe i g D . P out’s fi di gs to D . L h’s fi di gs. The opi io of a e a i i g ph si ia is ge e all gi e o e eight tha that of a o e a i i g edi al sou e. C.F.R. § . . Ho e e , a ALJ eed ot gi e pa ti ula l good easo s fo p efe i g the opi io of a o e a i i g sou e e.g., D . P out to that of a o e ti e e a i i g sou e e.g., D . L h . See S ith v. Co the e ui e e t i “e tio . 'r of So . Se ., F. d , th Ci . e og izi g that that the ALJ gi e good easo s fo eje ti g the opi io of a edi al sou e applies o l to t eati g sou es . Plai tiff’s third argu e t Plai tiff’s thi d a d fi al a gu e t is that the ALJ e ed i ot fi di g that he has a edu atio a d i fi di g that he a ead suffi ie tl to pe fo eighi g/ easu i g, a d lea i g/ ustodial. [AR at the jo s of light e h asse has a si th o a se e th g ade edu atio , a ead E glish, a d a , , , , , l , .] I pa t, Plai tiff’s a gu e t la ks a fa tual asis e ause the ALJ did fi d that Plai tiff has a a gi al edu atio . [AR at [AR at a gi al .] Plai tiff i di ated that he ite o e that his a e i E glish. .] Plai tiff ide tifies o e ide tia asis fo o ludi g that the jo s i uestio e ui e g eate eadi g a ilities tha Plai tiff possesses. 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. July 8, 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.
