White v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2018cv00174 - Document 25 (W.D. Ky. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Lanny King on 11/25/2019. The final decision of the Commissioner is hereby AFFIRMED, and Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED. cc: Counsel (MNM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
White v. Commissioner of Social Security “HARBAI A. WHITE Doc. 25 UNITED “TATE“ DI“TRICT COURT WE“TERN DI“TRICT OF KENTUCKY BOWLING GREEN DIVI“ION CIVIL ACTION NO. : CV 4 LLK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT . ANDREW “AUL, Co issio er of “o ial “e urity 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 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 . Plai tiff alleges disa ilit due to a iet , pa i atta ks, a d s hizoaffe ti e diso de . Ad i ist ati e Re o d AR at . I Jul , Plai tiff’s t eati g ps hiat ist, Louis G. Mudd, M.D., o pleted the sta da d e tal assess e t fo li ited i of fu tio al a eas. AR at , fi di g that Plai tiff is e t e el a d a kedl . It is u disputed that a epta e of D . Mudd’s fi di gs ould e ui e a ulti ate fi di g of disa led. The Ad i ist ati e La Judge ALJ ga e o eight to D . Mudd’s fi di gs, i pa t, e ause D . Mudd’s t eat e t otes, hi h ight ha e ide tified suppo ti g li i al ases, a e e ti el ha d , itte a d al ost o pletel illegi le. AR at . Plai tiff’s p i a a gu e t is that the ALJ’s de isio to gi e efe e i g AR at o eight to D . Mudd’s fi di gs is ot suppo ted su sta tial e ide e. Be ause the ALJ had o dut to o ta t D . Mudd fo la ifi atio of his illegi le otes a d e ause Plai tiff a ied the ulti ate u de of p o i g he disa ilit lai , the Cou t Co ill AFFIRM the issio e ’s fi al de isio a d DI“MI““ Plai tiff’s o plai t. Dockets.Justia.com A hro ologi al history of Plai tiff’s disa ility lai Plai tiff alleges that she e a e disa led i Ja ua s hizoaffe ti e diso de . AR at U til Ju e , due to a iet , pa i atta ks, a d . app o i atel se e o ths efo e he alleged o set of disa ilit date , Plai tiff held a espo si le positio a i g fo spe ial eeds adults. AR at , , , . Plai tiff ga e t o e pla atio s of he alleged, elati el apid de li e i to disa ilit et ee Ju e Fi st, she stated that she as aped i o a ou d a d Ja ua , hile d i i g ho e f o a othe state. AR at . , . “e o d, she stated that, afte losi g he jo , she as u a le to fi d a othe jo a d as fo ed to li e ith he othe s, ho had d ug p o le s a d li ed a haoti lifest le. AR at ALJ fou d that Plai tiff suffe s f o su sta e a use diso de . AR at I Fe ua . I Ma h , oi es allegedl pe suaded he to o e dose a se o d ti e a d to set he ed o fi e so she ould est i pea e. AR at . Plai tiff as see D . Mudd agai a d t a sfe ed fo a elati el ief sta at Weste “tate Hospital i Hopki s ille, Ke tu k . AR at e ei ed outpatie t t eat e t at Lifeskills, I . AR at , . The , Plai tiff o e dosed o ps hot opi edi atio a d as ad itted to Bo li g audito hallu i atio s o , . G ee Medi al Ce te , he e she as see ps hiat ist Louis G. Mudd. AR at I , , Plai tiff u ed do . The eafte , Plai tiff . he o f ie d’s house a d as o i ted of a so . AR at . “he as i a e ated et ee Ju e a d Ap il . Id. Upo elease, she epo ted dist ess at ei g u a le to fi d o k due to he felo e o d. AR at . I a d , Plai tiff’s othe as a le to get he so e o k at a otto fa to , ut o e of the jo s lasted lo g e ause she allegedl ould ot ha dle the st ess. AR at I Ju e , , . , Plai tiff filed appli atio s fo disa ilit e efits pu sua t to Titles II a d XVI of the “o ial “e u it A t, allegi g she e a e disa led i Ja ua i su ed fo Title II e efits i Ju e . . AR at , . Plai tiff as last I “epte e , Life“kills eleased Plai tiff as a patie t due to epo ted i p o e e t. AR at e , Plai tiff as e a i ed at the e uest of the Co . I No e ps hologist E il “kaggs, Ps .D. AR at I De e e I Ja ua issio e li e sed li i al . , Plai tiff’s disa ilit lai as de ied i itiall . AR at . , Plai tiff esu ed t eat e t at Life“kills due to a epo ted i ithout a ide tifia le t igge s. AR at . I o a ou d Ja ua . , Plai tiff disa ilit lai as de ied o e o side atio . AR at I Ma . , Plai tiff epo ted hea i g oi es that told he to ju p out of a o i g a a d e d he life e ause othi g ill e e ha ge fo he . AR at , . I “epte e th ough No e , she sought t eat e t fo a iet a d pa i atta ks f o D s. W ight a d Redde . AR at A Life“kills ote f o De e e . A Life“kills ote f o Ma h at pto s , she appa e tl ega egula t eat e t ith D . Mudd, the ps hiat ist ho sa he afte he o e doses i I Ma h ease i s states that she e t afte he othe ith a ha e . e . AR at states that she epo ted isual hallu i atio s seei g e . AR . I Jul , D . Mudd o pleted the sta da d e tal assess e t fo asis of Plai tiff’s disa ilit lai . AR at A Lifeskills ote f o De e e , hi h fo s the p i a . i di ates that edi atio as helpi g Plai tiff ith he hallu i atio s, ut she as still e pe ie i g a iet a d pa i atta ks. AR at . Dr. Mudd’s fi di gs As oted a o e, D . Mudd’s t eat e t otes a e e ti el ha d illegi le. AR at assess e t fo . Ho e e , D . Mudd’s fi di gs i the o itte a d al ost o pletel e ts se tio of the sta da d e tal he o pleted a e ostl legi le. The gist of D . Mudd’s o e ta is that it is his opi io that, if Plai tiff e e pla ed i a o k e i o e t, he s pto s ould likel i ease to the poi t of ei g a pote tial th eat to he self a d othe s: This a ies depe de t o pa i atta ks, getti g out of house [illegi le] the e likel to e u h o se i o k setti g, fea i pa t elated to pa a oia / oi es. … “ hizoaffe ti e diso de , post t au ati st ess diso de [illegi le] se ual assault , a ia le s pto s ased o e i o e t opi io – u a le to o k – see elo [illegi le] . … Ms. White hea s oi es a d is pa a oid a d fea ful, she also [illegi le], she isolates a d a oids situatio s i pu li [illegi le], s pto s a e likel to e a e ate leadi g to u elia ilit a d pote tial da ge self o othe s. AR at . The ALJ ga e o eight to D . Mudd’s opi io , i pa t, due to the illegi ilit of D . Mudd’s suppo ti g fi di gs: He ps hiat ist, D . Louis Mudd, e do sed e t e e a d a ked li itatio s fo the lai a t. This is gi e o eight. The e a i atio e o ds su itted D . Mudd do ot suppo t his o allegatio s of su h li itatio s. It is ot lea f o these e o ds that he e e p o ided t eat e t aside f o e el p es i i g edi atio a d efills. The e a e o ou seli g e o ds, o e tal status e a i atio s, a d o i di atio s hatsoe e of he o ditio a ti e i his e o ds, ost of hi h a e la gel – if ot o pletel – illegi le. AR at . The ALJ’s de isio to gi e Dr. Mudd’s disa li g fi di gs o eight as supported y su sta tial e ide e. Plai tiff a gues that the ALJ’s de isio to gi e o eight AR at to D . Mudd’s disa li g fi di gs as ot suppo ted su sta tial e ide e. Do ket # at . A ALJ ust gi e a t eati g sou e’s edi al opi io o t olli g eight u de e tai i u sta es. It is u disputed that D . Mudd’s fi di gs of e t e e a d a ked li itatio s as a edi al opi io f o a t eati g sou e. The fi di gs e e e titled to o t olli g eight if the e e ell suppo ted edi all a epta le li i al a d la o ato diag osti te h i ues a d [ e e] ot i o siste t ith the othe su sta tial e ide e i ou ase e o d. C.F.R. § . . D . Mudd’s fi di gs e e ot e titled to o t olli g eight e ause D . Mudd’s asse tio that, if Plai tiff e e pla ed i a o k e i o likel i e t, he s ease to the poi t of ei g a pote tial th eat to he self a d othe s as spe ulati e a d ot ell suppo ted edi all a epta le li i al a d la o ato diag osti te h i ues. pto s ould Ad ittedl , D . Mudd’s t eat e t otes a ha e o tai ed suppo ti g fi di gs. Ho e e , the otes a e al ost o pletel illegi le. U de p io legal sta da ds, the ALJ a gua l had a dut to o ta t D . Mudd fo la ifi atio . See fo e C.F.R. § . e spe if i g i u sta es i hi h a ALJ ust o ta t a t eati g sou e fo la ifi atio of the ases of his/he opi io s ; see also Belto v. Co of Soc. Sec., No. CIV.A. WL , WL , at * E.D. Mi h. No . , epo t adopted, 'r Whe e the edi al e o ds a e u ial to the lai a t's lai , illegi ilit of i po ta t e ide tia ate ial has ee held to a a t a e a d fo fu the la ifi atio a d supple e tatio . . Effe ti e Ma h , , ho e e , C.F.R. § aki g o ta t optio al. See “e tio a ALJ to ake a disa ilit dete ut the ALJ ill dete . epla ed the fo e a dato e ui e e t, . If the e ide e is i o siste t o i suffi ie t fo i atio , the ALJ a e o ta t the edi al sou e fo la ifi atio , i e the est a to p o eed, hi h a e si pl to ake the dete i atio ased o the e ide e e ha e. Gi e the la k of a affi ati e dut o the pa t of a ALJ to o ta t the t eati g sou e fo la ifi atio of illegi le otes, the illegi ilit a fai l e ie ed as si pl a spe ial ase of the lai a t’s failu e to a he u de of p oof. See Beckstedt v. Co “.D. Ohio Ja . , epo t adopted, WL 'r, No. : CV , WL , at * The fa t that a t eati g ph si ia ’s otes a e la gel illegi le does ot elie e plai tiff of this u de [of p o i g he disa ilit lai ], o does it e ui e the Co Willia s v. Co a e i fo issio e to a ept plai tiff's o d i lieu of o je ti e, li i al, o opi io e ide e. ; ’r, No. : CV , WL , at * N.D. Ohio Ap . , While the e atio helpful to Plai tiff’s ase u ied i these [illegi le] otes … Plai tiff hose ot to ha e [the ] t a s i ed … o did she othe ise p o ide assista e to the Cou t i de iphe i g o uoti g these do u e ts. I the e d, it is Plai tiff’s u de of de o st ati g a e title e t to disa ilit e efits. . The efo e, due to la k of p o e legi le li i al fi di gs suppo ti g D . Mudd’s disa li g fi di gs, the ALJ as ot e ui ed to gi e those fi di gs o t olli g eight. Additio all , the ALJ as ot e ui ed to gi e o t olli g eight to D . Mudd’s disa li g fi di gs e ause the e e i o siste t ith the othe su sta tial e ide e i ou ase e o d. “e tio . . Fo e a ple, Plai tiff’s allegedl e t e e i a ilit to i te a t app op iatel ith the ge e al pu li as at odds ith he atte da e of hu h th ee ti es a eek a d shoppi g i sto es t i e a o th. AR at , , . Othe e t e e a d a ked li itatio s fou d D . Mudd e e i o siste t ith Plai tiff’s epo t of getti g alo g good ith autho it figu es, follo i g itte a d spoke i st u tio s good, ei g a le to fi ish hat she sta ts, a d ei g a le to pa atte tio fo hou st aight. AR at , . Whe as he e the ALJ does ot gi e o t olli g eight to a t eati g sou e's opi io , he is e ui ed to: [A]ppl e tai fa to s a el , the le gth of the t eat e t elatio ship a d the f e ue of e a i atio , the atu e a d e te t of the t eat e t elatio ship, suppo ta ilit of the opi io , o siste of the opi io ith the e o d as a hole, a d the spe ializatio of the t eati g sou e i dete i i g hat eight to gi e the opi io . Wilso v. Co 'r, F. d , th Ci . . E e though the ALJ ust a ti ulate good easo s, he is ot e ui ed e pli itl to e ite these fa to s as lo g as his easo s efle t the . I fa tado v. Co ’r, F. App’ , th Ci . . Due to the illegi ilit of D . Mudd’s otes, the ALJ as ot i a positio to fu the a ti ulate his easo s. The ALJ’s de isio to gi e D . Mudd’s disa li g opi io s o eight as suppo ted su sta tial e ide e. The ALJ did ot err i gi i g greater eight to Dr. “todola’s opi io tha to Dr. “kagg’s opi io . As oted a o e, i No e e , Plai tiff as e a i ed at the e uest of the Co li e sed li i al ps hologist E il “kaggs, Ps .D. D . “kaggs fou d that Plai tiff is i he a ilities to u de sta d, e e to da e plo a kedl li ited out si ple tasks; tole ate st ess a d p essu e of da e t; sustai atte tio a d o e t atio ; a d espo d app op iatel to supe iso s a d o o ke s. AR at Co e , a d a issio e . I Ma h , i light of D . “kaggs’ fi di gs a d the e o d as a hole, the issio e ’s o e a i i g p og a ps hologist, Ed a d “todola, Ph.D., opi ed that Plai tiff is o o e tha ode atel li ited i a fu tio al a ea. AR at . The ALJ ga e D . “kagg’s opi io little eight a d D . “todola’s opi io so e eight fo se e al easo s: D . “kaggs diag osed [Plai tiff] ith s hizoaffe ti e diso de i spite of o othe p o ide suggesti g this. “he assig ed the lai a t a glo al assess e t of fu tio i g of a d a ked li itatio s, i o siste t ith he o se atio s du i g the e a i atio that e e elati el ild i atu e, as ell as he past e plo e t histo a d a ti ities of dail li i g. AR at . Plai tiff a gues that the ALJ e ed i p efe i g D . “todola’s opi io . Ge e all , e gi e o e eight to the edi al opi io of a sou e ho has e a i ed ou tha to the edi al opi io of a edi al sou e ho has ot e a i ed ou. Co C.F.R. § . . The issio e ’s o e a i i g p og a ps hologists, su h as D . “todola, a e highl ualified … ps hologists ho a e e pe ts i the e aluatio of the edi al issues i disa ilit lai s u de the [“o ial “e u it ] A t. “o ial “e u it Ruli g ““R p, WL , at * . Thus, u de e tai i u sta es, a ALJ a assig g eate eight to the opi io of a p og a ps hologist tha to the opi io of a e a i i g sou e. Id. at * . “u h i u sta es i lude he e the p og a ps hologist’s opi io is ased o a e ie of a o plete ase e o d, Id., a d he e the p og a ps hologist’s opi io is Ci . o e o siste t ... ith the e o d as a hole. Brooks v. Co 'r, F. App' , th . I this ase, the ase e o d efo e D . “todola as at least as o plete tha the ase e o d efo e D . “kaggs. The ALJ fou d D . “todola’s opi io to e o e o siste t ith the e o d as a hole. AR at . The efo e, the ALJ did ot e i gi i g g eate eight to D . “todola’s opi io tha to D . “kagg’s opi io . Plai tiff failed to pro e that she suffers fro a i pair e t satisfyi g the Listi g. Ne t, Plai tiff a gues that he s hizoaffe ti e diso de , a iet , dep essio , ipola /affe ti e diso de a d/o post t au ati st ess diso de PT“D satisf Listi gs . , . , . a d/o . . The a gu e t p esupposes that the ALJ as e ui ed to gi e o t olli g o defe e tial eight to the e t e e a d/o a ked li itatio s fou d D s. Mudd a d/o “kagg. Be ause this opi io has al ead o luded that the ALJ p ope l ga e o eight to D . Mudd’s fi di gs a d p ope l ga e g eate eight to D . “tolola’s opi io tha to D . “kagg’s opi io , Plai tiff’s p esuppositio is i appli a le. The efo e, Plai tiff failed to p o e that she suffe s f o a i pai e t satisf i g the Listi g. The ALJ’s e aluatio of Plai tiff’s su je ti e allegatio s as supported y su sta tial e ide e. Fi all , Plai tiff a gues that a e a d is e ui ed e ause [t]he ALJ’s e ti e a al sis of [he ] o plai ts see s to est of the spo adi atu e of Plai tiff’s t eat e t a d he o o plia e. Do ket # at . “i e the ALJ failed to e plo e a possi le easo s fo this eha io , a d failed to add ess a su h easo s i his de isio , his de isio a The Co ot e suppo ted su sta tial e ide e. Id. issio e o edes that the ALJ e ed ot o side i g [Plai tiff’s] i a ilit to affo d t eat e t as a legiti ate e use fo o o plia e. Do ket # at . Ho e e , e a d is ot e ui ed e ause the ALJ’s e ti e a al sis as ot ased o o o plia e a d spo adi t eat e t a d, e e if it as, spo adi t eat e t p o ided a su sta tial asis fo the ALJ’s a al sis. I a e e t, the ALJ ased his e aluatio of Plai tiff’s su je ti e allegatio s o se e al othe fa to s: He i itial t eat e t oi ided ith he fi st appli atio fo e efits. … “he e t th ough pe iods of ot hea i g oi es that see ed to oi ide ith he use of e zodiazepi es a d othe su sta es. “he o ked as a house a age fo se e al ea s o ki g ith a d assisti g spe ial eeds adults ith e tal i pai e ts, a d the e is o e o d fo this jo o a othe jo that she as u a le to pe fo due to a e tal i pai e t, o that she as getti g t eat e t fo a e tal i pai e t. … “he p ese ted at the hea i g as pleasa t, i tellige t, a d e gagi g. He de ea o as app op iate a d espo si e, ithout a a iet o dep essed ood o a o al affe t. 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 'r, F. App' , th Ci . . The e is o easo to elie e that a e a d to the ALJ fo o side atio of pote tiall alid e uses fo o o plia e ith t eat e t i.e., la k of fu ds ould lead to a diffe e t esult. Order Be ause the ALJ’s de isio as suppo ted u pe suasi e, the fi al de isio of the Co su sta tial e ide e a d Plai tiff’s a gu e ts a e issio e is he e AFFIRMED, a d Plai tiff’s o plai t is DI“MI““ED. November 25, 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.
