Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2018cv00140 - Document 22 (W.D. Ky. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lanny King on 6/12/2019. Plaintiff's motion for a remand (DN 17 ) is DENIED. The Commissioner's final decision is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED. cc: Counsel(JWM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY BOWLING GREEN DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. : 8 CV LLK MARGARET C. MILLER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT . 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 the fou th se te e of U.“.C. § g , of the fi al de isio of the Co “o ial “e u it disa ilit e efits. Plai tiff’s fa t a d la su fa t a d la su a a e at Do kets # a d issio e de i g he lai fo a a d the Co issio e ’s espo si e . Additio all , Plai tiff filed a otio fo a e a d fo o side atio of e a d ate ial e ide e pu sua t to the si th se te e of “e tio . The Co su g . Do ket # issio e ’s espo se i oppositio to Plai tiff’s otio is i luded i he fa t a d la a e ause, a o di g to the Co issio e , the issues a e i e t i a l li ked. Do ket # at . This ase 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 of Appeals. Do ket # Do ket # i e this ase, ith a appeal l i g efo e the “i th Ci uit Cou t . Fo the easo s elo , the Cou t ill DENY Plai tiff’s otio fo a e a d ; AFFIRM the Co issio e ’s fi al de isio ; a d DI“MI““ Plai tiff’s o plai t. The ALJ’s decisio The Ad i ist ati e La judge ALJ de ied Plai tiff’s disa ilit lai pu sua t to the fa ilia step se ue tial e aluatio p o ess, hi h applies i ost “o ial “e u it disa ilit ases. Fi st, the ALJ fou d that Plai tiff has ot e gaged i su sta tial gai ful a ti it si e Ju e , e a e disa led. Ad i ist ati e Re o d AR at . “e o d, 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, edi al i pai , he she alleges she e ts: o esit , dege e ati e ha ges Dockets.Justia.com of the lu a spi e a d hips, sa oiliitis, a d histo o e u e t kid e sto es esulti g i e e tual e o al of the ight kid e . AR at i pai . Thi d, the ALJ fou d that Plai tiff does ot suffe f o a edi al e t satisf i g the edi al ite ia of a i pai e t listed i Appe di of the egulatio s. Id. As e ui ed i a ase that ad a es e o d step , the ALJ dete fu tio al apa it RFC . The ALJ fou d that Plai tiff has a RFC to pe fo a li ited a ge of light o k, ith the follo i g additio al o e e tio al li itatio s: a o l o asio all li o asio all li i ed Plai tiff’s esidual a ps a d/o stai s; ladde s, opes, o s affolds; f e ue tl ala e; o asio all stoop, k eel, ou h, o a l; a d o o sta t e posu e to i atio . AR at . Fou th, the ALJ fou d that Plai tiff is ot disa led e ause she etai s the a ilit to pe fo past ele a t o k as a light ashie a d losi g a age . AR at , . Fifth, the ALJ fou d, i the alte ati e, that Plai tiff is ot disa led e ause she etai s the a ilit to pe fo othe jo s i the atio al e o o he a sig ifi a t u su h as sede ta pulle , stuffe , a d ti ket take . AR at e of , . The ALJ’s alte ati e fifth step fi di g as p e ised o o atio al testi o that o te plated g eate est i tio s tha the ALJ’s RFC fi di g. “pe ifi all , the ALJ asked the o atio al e pe t VE to assu e i additio to the a o e o e e tio al li itatio s that the i di idual is est i ted to sede ta as opposed to light o k. AR at . The VE testified that the i di idual ould o k as a sede ta pulle , stuffe , o ti ket take . Id. . Judicial Re ie , Se te ce , U.S.C. § g Whe e, as he e, the Appeals Cou il de li ed to e ie the ALJ's de isio AR at , judi ial e ie is li ited to the e ide e that as pa t of the e o d efo e the ALJ. Bass v. Co , th Ci . fi di gs. Blakley v. Co ’r of Soc. Sec., . The Cou t de ides o l hethe su sta tial e ide e suppo ts the ALJ's 'r, F. d , th Ci . . If so, the Cou t affi s those fi di gs e e i the fa e of su sta tial e ide e suppo ti g a diffe e t o e e a opposite o lusio . Id. F. d I a Ca e Pla f o Ma h , Plai tiff’s t eati g ad a ed p a ti e egiste ed u se APRN , A gela Jessie, i di ated that she had p es i ed Plai tiff a heel hai : [Patie t] epo ts ha i g i easi g diffi ult alki g due to hip pai . Co ti [ue] to see pai li i . R [p es iptio ] itte fo heel hai . AR at . The ALJ fou d that Plai tiff failed to p o e that she edi all e ui es a heel hai : The u de sig ed otes that the lai a t’s ph si ia sic. Ms. Jessie is a APRN p es i ed a heel hai i Ma h of . Ho e e , to fi d that a assisti e de i e is e ui ed, the e ust e edi al do u e tatio esta lishi g the eed fo the de i e, as ell as des i i g the i u sta es i hi h it is eeded. ““R [“o ial “e u it Ruli g] p. Ho e e , the edi al e ide e does ot suffi ie tl do u e t the eed fo this de i e. I fa t, o the sa e da the p es iptio as itte , the lai a t had o al a ge of otio , o al st e gth, a d o i sta ilit . The e as also o e ide e of te de ess o epitus. [AR at .] Fu the , the e o d does ot o tai a des iptio of the i u sta es fo hi h this de i e is e ui ed. AR at . Plai tiff a gues that the ALJ’s RFC fi di g fo light o k is ot suppo ted su sta tial e ide e. Do ket # at . E e if the ALJ’s RFC fi di g fo light o k is u suppo ted, e e sal of the ALJ’s de isio is u a a ted i light of the ALJ’s alte ati e fifth step fi di gs, hi h li ited Plai tiff to sede ta o k. AR at , . 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 F. d , e RFC dete th Ci . 'r, F. App' , th Ci . . I this ase, if the Cou t e e to e a d this ase to the ALJ fo a i atio a d de isio , the ALJ ould likel eaffi Plai tiff is a le to pe fo uoti g Fisher v. Sec'y, a sig ifi a t u his p io , alte ati e fi di g that e of sede ta jo s i the atio al e o o . I Ju e , APRN Jessie eaffi ed that Plai tiff [ ]e ui es heel hai due to pai i R [ ight] hip. AR at . Additio all , the ALJ asked the VE to assu e that the i di idual ould ha e to o k fo a heel hai . AR at . The VE testified that, e ause o ki g fo a heel hai is sede ta o k, the eal issue is hethe the a tual [ o k site] uildi g ight keep it f o happe i g. AR at . I suppo t of he a gu e t that the ALJ’s RFC fi di g fo light o k is u suppo ted, Plai tiff ites: APRN Jessie’s heel hai p es iptio ; The edi al e ide e, a d The li iti g effe ts of he pai a d othe su je ti e s pto s. Do ket # at , , . The heel hai p es iptio does ot u de i e the ALJ’s RFC fi di g fo fou easo s. Fi st, the p es iptio itself, if a , does ot appea i the ad i ist ati e e o d. The e is o e ide e that Plai tiff edi all eeded as opposed to su je ti el desi ed a heel hai o that she a tuall o tai ed a d used a heel hai . “e o d, the e is o e ide e of the i u sta es of Plai tiff’s edi al eed, if a , fo a heel hai , e.g., hethe she eeds it oth i side a d outside the ho e/ o k site, fo alki g o u e e su fa es, ala e, est, et . As oted the ALJ, ““R p, WL e ui es do u e tatio of oth the eed a d the i u sta es of eedi g a assisti e de i e. AR at . Thi d, the e is o e ide e that a a tual heel hai use satisfied the o th du atio e ui e e t. See U.“.C. § To e disa li g, a i pai e t o li itatio d A ust ha e lasted o a e e pe ted to last fo a o ti uous pe iod of ot less tha o ths. . Fou th, a ad a ed p a ti e egiste ed u se APRN is ot a a epta le edi al sou e. Rega di g the edi al e ide e, Plai tiff ites, as allegedl u de light o k, th ee ite s: APRN Jessie’s ote f o Ma h p es iptio that Plai tiff is e pe ie i g i o ti [ue] to see pai li i AR at th ough Ma i i g the ALJ’s RFC fi di g of o te po a eous ith he heel hai easi g diffi ult alki g due to hip pai a d she eed to ; I te e tio Pai “pe ialists’ otes f o De e of sa oilia “I joi t te de ess AR at , , , , , e ; a d Note f o “o e of the e e ide e p odu ed Plai tiff i suppo t of a “e te e e a d suggests that she does ot eed a heel hai . Fo e a ple, i “epte e , Rasesh Dasai, M.D., o se ed that Plai tiff as a le to o k ithout a assista e. Do ket # at . While e e t ha ges to the egulatio s o i lude li e sed ad a ed p a ti e egiste ed u ses APRNs a o g the list of a epta le edi al sou es, the ha ges a e e p essl ot et oa ti e. See C.F.R. § . a A epta le edi al sou e ea s a edi al sou e ho is a ... Li e sed Ad a ed P a ti e Registe ed Nu se ... fo i pai e ts ithi his o he li e sed s ope of p a ti e ... o l ith espe t to lai s filed ... o o afte Ma h , . . Plai tiff filed he lai s i . AR at . De e e th ough Ja ua of “IJ [sa oilia joi t] P o o ati e Tests: P e diag osti i je tio FABER test positi e, o p essio test positi e a d thigh th ust test positi e AR at These otes do ot u de , , . i e the ALJ’s RFC fi di g fo light o k fo t o easo s. Fi st, these fi di gs do ot i di ate that Plai tiff a ot pe fo light o k. See 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 . Neithe the ALJ, the Plai tiff, o this Cou t has the edi al e pe tise e essa to opi e hethe a edi al fi di gs p e lude light o k. See Rudd v. Co 'r, F. App' , th Ci . uoti g Nguye v. Chater, st Ci . As a la pe so , ... the ALJ as si pl ot ualified to i te p et a edi al data i fu tio al te s. . “e o d, e e if the otes do p e lude light o k, the do ot satisf the e ause the add ess Plai tiff’s RFC o l f o De e i pai e F. d , o th du atio e ui e e t th ough Ma . To e disa li g, a e t ust ha e lasted o a e e pe ted to last fo a o ti uous pe iod of ot less tha o ths. U.“.C. § d A . Rega di g the li iti g effe ts of su je ti e s Plai tiff’s pai a d othe su je ti e s pto s, the ALJ as ot e ui ed to fi d that pto s p e lude pe fo a e of light o k. Histo i all , a ALJ's e aluatio of the i te sit , pe siste e, a d li ited effe ts of pai a d othe su je ti e s k o . I a d efe e es to F. d , th p, edi ilit should e a oided e ause su je ti e pto e aluatio is ot a e a i atio of a i di idual's ha a te . ““R * . Ne e theless, the defe e tial sta da d of e ie of a ALJ's dete 'r, , the “o ial “e u it Ad i ist atio p o ulgated “o ial “e u it Ruli g ““R hi h i di ated that goi g fo s pto s as as the pai edi ilit a al sis, a d the “i th Ci uit i st u ted e ie i g ou ts ot to distu a ALJ's pai edi ilit a al sis a se t a o pelli g easo . S ith v. Co Ci . p, WL , i atio of the li itatio s due to pai a d othe su je ti e s pto s e ai s. Plai tiff ide tifies o o pelli g easo fo distu i g the ALJ’s fi di g that, ot ithsta di g he s pto s, she a pe fo a li ited a ge of light o k. The efo e, the ALJ’s RFC fi di g fo light o k is suppo ted su sta tial e ide e a d is i a o d ith appli a le legal sta da ds. E e if the fi di g is ot suppo ted a d Plai tiff is li ited to sede ta o k, the e is o e e si le e o i light of the ALJ’s alte ati e fifth step de ial atio ale. AR at , . Motio for a Re a d, Se te ce , U.S.C. § g As oted at the outset, Plai tiff filed a otio fo a e a d fo o side atio of e a d ate ial e ide e pu sua t to the si th se te e of oppositio . Do kets # , , , U.“.C. § g , to hi h the Co issio e espo ded i . Plai tiff appe ds to he otio th ee ite s of e e ide e. Do ket # . Plai tiff a gues that the e e ide e is ate ial e ause it u de i es the ALJ’s RFC fi di g fo light o k a d, if a epted, ould est i t he to sede ta o k. Fi st, o “epte e , , B ia Walla e, M.D., Medi al Ce te at Bo li g G ee i te p eted a MRI of Plai tiff’s lu a spi e as sho i g: . The e is a left e t al a d left fo a i al dis p ot usio at L “ ausi g i pi ge e t of the left “ e e oot. . Mild left eu ofo a i al a o i g at L se o da to dis ulge as et i to the left. . Li ea i eased T sig al i te sit ithi the distal spi al o d a ep ese t e t i ulus te i alis o s i . Do ket # at . “e o d, o O to e , , i light of the MRI, Rasesh Dasai, M.D., Medi al Ce te O thopaedi s, Bo li g G ee opi ed: I e ie ed the MRI epo t. Is suggesti e of left sided L “ dis he iatio ut I thi k it is o e of the “ “ left sided dis he iatio i pi gi g o the left “ e e oot. “he does ha e a t a sitio al e te a. Ho e e , all he s pto s a e o e o the ight side. “he has ee o plai i g of o e i the ight gluteal a ea pai as ell as ight hip pai . The hip a s a e ot suggesti e of a sig ifi a t a th iti ha ges. I thi k a lot of he pai is p o a l o i g f o the “I [sa oilia ] joi t. We ha e dis ussed diffe e t t eat e t optio . I e plai ed he that I do ot do su ge ies fo the “I joi t a d she ight ha e a see D . “i ge [Weste Ke tu k O thopaedi a d Neu osu gi al Asso iates, Bo li g G ee ] agai a d see if he a do the “I joi t fusio . Do ket # at . Thi d, o Fe ua , , Todd “ha ks, M.D., Weste Ke tu k O thopaedi a d Neu osu gi al Asso iates, Bo li g G ee ga e the follo i g assess e t: I did dis uss ith [Plai tiff] that if su ge ould e a a ted i the futu e it ould e u h o e opti al fo he to e pe ie e a sig ifi a t a ou t of eight edu tio a d e ould like to at least ide tif the pai ge e ato hi h I do feel is L “ . I ill see he a k i app o i atel o ths to see ho she is espo di g. Do ket # at . E ide e is ate ial o l if Plai tiff sho s that the e is a easo a le p o a ilit that the [ALJ] ould ha e ea hed a diffe e t dispositio of the disa ilit lai if p ese ted ith the e e ide e. Miller v. Co 'r, F. d , th Ci . . The e ide e is ot ate ial i light of the ALJ’s alte ati e fifth step fi di gs, hi h li ited Plai tiff to sede ta o k. AR at , . I othe o ds, if the Cou t e e to e a d this ase to the ALJ to o side the e e ide e, assu i g the ALJ fou d the e ide e to e i o pati le ith a a ilit to pe fo light o k, the ALJ ould ot likel o lude that Plai tiff is disa led. Rathe , the ALJ ould likel eaffi Plai tiff is a le to pe fo a sig ifi a t u his p io , alte ati e fi di g that e of sede ta jo s i the atio al e o o . Order Fo the fo egoi g easo s, Plai tiff’s otio fo a e a d Do ket # Co is he e DENIED; the issio e ’s fi al de isio AFFIRMED; a d Plai tiff’s o plai t is DI“MI““ED. June 12, 2019 Good ause appa e tl is p ese t e ause the e ide e a ose f o o ti ued edi al t eat e t. [G]ood ause is sho fo [a “e te e ] e a d if the e e ide e a ises f o o ti ued edi al t eat e t of the o ditio , a d as ot ge e ated e el fo the pu pose of atte pti g to p o e disa ilit . Guill McCoy v. Co ’r, Ci il A tio No. : CV , WL W.D. K . uoti g Koulizos v. Sec’y, No. , WL th Ci . Aug. , .
]]>
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.
