Davison v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 3:2018cv00578 - Document 23 (W.D. Ky. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lanny King on 5/3/2019 - Because the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence and is in accord with applicable legal standards, it is hereby ORDERED that the Commissioner's final decision is AFFIRMED and that Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED. cc: Counsel (KD)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Davison v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3: CV 5 LLK KIMBERLY LEE DAVISON 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. Plai tiff’s fa t/la su at Do ket # dete issio e de i g he lai fo “o ial “e u it disa ilit a is at Do ket # , a d Defe da t’s a e ded fa t/la su a is . The pa ties ha e o se ted to the ju isdi tio of the u de sig ed Magist ate Judge to i e this ase, ith a appeal l i g efo e the “i th Ci uit Cou t of Appeals. Do ket # atte is ipe fo dete . The i atio . Plai tiff a gues that: The Ad i ist ati e La Judge’s ALJ’s e aluatio of he t eati g ph si ia ’s edi al opi io s does ot a o d ith appli a le legal sta da ds; a d The ALJ’s esidual fu tio al apa it RFC fi di g is i o siste t o its fa e. Be ause eithe a gu e t is pe suasi e a d the 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 t. First argu e t The ALJ fou d that Plai tiff is ot disa led e ause, ot ithsta di g he e i al a d lu dege e ati e dis disease a d o esit , she etai s the a ilit to pe fo jo s i the atio al e o o . Ad i ist ati e Re o d AR at , a sig ifi a t u , , e of sede ta . Plai tiff a gues that the ALJ e ed i e aluati g th ee opi io s gi e “a ita Nai : A t eat e t ote dated Ma h a he t eati g ph si ia , , hi h states that I ha e ad ised the patie t to ha ge positio at o k, ele ate leg ith a foot stool, a d do ot lift a thi g hea hi h she usuall Dockets.Justia.com does ot at o k AR, at ; Co pletio of a go e e t fo ehalf to o tai a disa ilit elated pa ki g pass/pla a d AR at fo i “epte e /O to e of A t FMLA AR at o Ma h , o Plai tiff’s ; a d Co pletio of a go e e t to o tai edi al o k lea e u de the Fa il a d Medi al Lea e . Rega di g the Ma h de li ed to a ept as pe ote, the ALJ a epted that Plai tiff a a e t o se i pe ot e gage i hea lifti g ut a e t jo est i tio D . Nai ’s ad i e that she ust ele ate he leg. A o di g to the ALJ, the ad i e as due to he epo ts of s elli g i he left a kle [a d] it does ot appea that he s elli g o ede a pe sisted. AR at . The ALJ’s e aluatio of D . Nai ’s opi io as suppo ted su sta tial e ide e fo th ee easo s. Fi st, the ALJ’s fi di g of o pe siste t ede a as suppo ted the e ide e. E e the da he ga e the ad i e, D . Nai oted that ph si al e a of Plai tiff’s e t e ities e ealed o ede a … left a kle, the e is o s elli g. AR at la k of e ide e of ede a i su se ue t otes at AR, pp. , , , , , , ; see also . “e o d, the e is o i di atio that D . Nai i te ded his o e ti e ad i e as a o k est i tio satisf i g the o th du atio e ui e e t. “ee U.“.C. § d A To e disa li g, a i pai 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. ; co pare the fa ts of this ase to those i Hargis v. Co Jul , ’r of Soc. Sec., No. : CV , WL [T]he e as o l o e i sta e i hi h a t eati g sou e e o ele ate his legs, a d that the e as o i di atio that this as a pe e e if D . Nai ad i e is i te p eted as assig e t of a pe WL Cou t to g a t E , at * E.D. Mi h. No . , a e t jo est i tio , he p o ided i suffi ie t o s v. Co o s the elief he seeks. D . Ra ge did ot sa ho ofte o ho lo g E his legs. . ’r, No. : The ad i e to ele ate as too ague fo the to ele ate his legs, to hat height, o hat fu tio al li itatio s E e ded that Plai tiff a e t fu tio al li itatio . . Thi d, details to o lude that the ALJ did ot ade uatel take it i to a ou t. See E , , at * N.D. Ohio o s eeded o s ould ha e if he did ot ele ate Rega di g the Ma h pa ki g pass fo , D . Nai i di ated that Plai tiff satisfies the e ui e e t that he disa ilities li it o i pai the a ilit to alk feet. AR at . D . Nai i led that that this as due to he o thopedi o ditio . Id. The ALJ ga e little eight to D . Nai ’s e do se e t e ause the e is o u de l i g suppo t fo the suggestio that the lai a t a suffi ie tl a d ould eed this pla a d. AR at ot alk . E e if Plai tiff’s o thopedi o ditio justified a pa ki g pass, that does ot p o e that she is i apa le of sta di g/ alki g suffi ie tl to pe fo sede ta o k. Rega di g the “epte e /O to e FMLA fo , D . Nai stated that Plai tiff: “hould a oid hea lifti g ; Will eed ti e off o k due to a edi al o ditio fo a pe iod of ti e to de ided spi e su geo ; a d [O] e the e t o ths, she e a e pe ie e fla e ups that e essitate a se es f o o k at the ate of episodes, e e o ths, lasti g da s. AR at . While the ALJ did ot e pli itl add ess the FMLA fo o st, ha i he itte de isio , a e o as, at less. “ede ta o k does ot e ui e hea lifti g. It is u k o ho lo g, if a , the spi e su geo de ided Plai tiff eeded to e off o k. The o e the e t o ths a d a ualifie s o the ate of fla e ups e essitati g o k a se es take D . Nai ’s opi io outside the o th du atio e ui e e t. See U.“.C. § d A To e disa li g, a i pai e pe ted to last fo a o ti uous pe iod of ot less tha e t ust ha e lasted o a e o ths. . Seco d argu e t The ALJ fou d that Plai tiff has, a o g othe thi gs, the esidual fu tio al apa it RFC to pe fo sede ta o k as defi ed i CFR . a , i ludi g sitti g fo a total of up to hou s a d sta di g fo a total of hou s i a hou o kda . AR at allo ed to use a a e he a . Additio all , Plai tiff ust e ulati g. Id. At the ad i ist ati e hea i g, ou sel oss e a i ed the o atio al e pe t VE . The VE testified that the ide tified sede ta jo s ould ot e i pa ted if the a e is eeded fo alki g ut ould e i pa ted if the a e is also eeded fo sta di g / ala i g. AR at . The VE e plai ed that the i di idual ould ha e to o k hile [he] as sta di g … a ouple of hou s a da a d so [he ould] e a o e ha ded o ke to pe fo o k tasks a d that ould ot o k i those jo s. AR at . Plai tiff’s fi al a gu e t is that the ALJ’s RFC fi di g is i o siste t o its fa e e ause § . a defi es sede ta o k as o k that i ol es lifti g o o e tha pou ds at a ti e a d o asio all lifti g o a she C.F.R. i g a ti les like do ket files, ledge s, a d s all tools, et the ALJ fou d that ust e allo ed to use a a e he a to e plai ho [she] a a ulati g. AR at . A o di g to Plai tiff, the ALJ failed pou ds if she e ui es a a e to a ulate. Do ket # The e as othi g to e plai e ause the ALJ did ot fi d that Plai tiff a a despite eedi g a a e to a at . pou ds ulate. I light of the VE’s e pla atio , the ALJ i pli itl fou d that Plai tiff a lift pou ds a d a ti les like do ket files, ledge s, a d s all tools hile sta di g e ause she does ot eed a a e fo sta di g/ ala i g. Plai tiff’s elia e o Love v. Co ’r, F.“upp. d W.D. Mi h. Do ket # at is u pe suasi e e ause Love is disti guisha le. The ALJ i Love dete i ed that Lo e a lift a d e phasis added a up to pou ds o asio all a d pou ds f e ue tl a d that Lo e e ui es a ha d held de i e to a ulate. Id. at . The Dist i t Cou t dis e [ed] a fu da e tal illogi to this dete i atio [a d] fail[ed] to o p ehe d ho Plai tiff a a pou ds if he e ui es a ha d held assisti e de i e to a ulate. Id. Fo the easo s i di ated a o e, the e is o su h fu da e tal illogi i this ase. I a e e t, the VE’s testi o o e i g the i pa t of Plai tiff’s eed fo a a e o he a ilities to alk, sta d, ala e, lift, a d a esol ed a a iguit a d o po ted ith the e ui e e ts of “o ial “e u it Ruli g ““R p, WL , at * : [I]f a edi all e ui ed ha d held assisti e de i e is eeded o l fo p olo ged a ulatio …, the u skilled sede ta o upatio al ase ill ot o di a il e sig ifi a tl e oded. … [A] i di idual ho uses a edi all e ui ed ha d held assisti e de i e i o e ha d a still ha e the a ilit to pe fo the i i al lifti g a d a i g e ui e e ts of a sede ta u skilled o upatio s ith the othe ha d. … O the othe ha d, the o upatio al ase fo a i di idual ho ust use su h a de i e fo ala e e ause of sig ifi a t i ol e e t of oth lo e e t e ities e.g., e ause of a eu ologi al i pai e t a e sig ifi a tl e oded. I these situatio s, too, it a e espe iall useful to o sult a o atio al esou e i o de to ake a judg e t ega di g the i di idual's a ilit to ake a adjust e t to othe o k. Id. Order Be ause the ALJ’s de isio is suppo ted su sta tial e ide e a d is i a o d ith appli a le legal sta da ds, it is he e ORDERED that the Co issio e ’s fi al de isio is AFFIRMED a d that Plai tiff’s o plai t is DI“MI““ED. May 3, 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.
