Harrison v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 5:2016cv00056 - Document 24 (W.D. Ky. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lanny King on 12/21/2016: Plaintiff's motion to strike 20 is DENIED; Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment 16 is DENIED; The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED; Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED. cc: counsel (JBM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Harrison v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY PADUCAH DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. : CV LLK RONI RANEE HARRISON PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT . CAROLYN COLVIN, Co issio er of So ial Se 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 “e te e of U.“.C. g of the fi al de isio of the Co issio e de i g he lai fo “o ial “e u it disa ilit e efits. The pa ties ha e o se ted to the ju isdi tio of the u de sig ed Magist ate Judge to dete Do ket i e this ase, ith a appeal l i g efo e the “i th Ci uit Cou t of Appeals. . Plai tiff filed a otio fo su a d a judg e t, a d Defe da t espo ded i oppositio . Do kets . The otio ill e DENIED e ause, o side i g o l the e ide e that as efo e the ad i ist ati e la judge ALJ , the ALJ’s de isio as suppo ted su sta tial e ide e a d as i a o d ith appli a le legal sta da ds. Additio all , the pa ties dispute the status of e tai e ide e that as ot efo e the ALJ. Plai tiff su itted e ide e to the Appeals Cou il suggesti g that o sultati e ph si ia Mi hael W. M Call, J ., as ot li e sed to p a ti e edi i e i the state of Ke tu k at the ti e he e a i ed Plai tiff at the e uest of the Co issio e . Defe da t su itted e ide e Do ket sho i g that, i fa t, D . M Call as dul li e sed. Plai tiff filed a otio to st ike Defe da t’s e ide e o e i g D . M Call’s li e su e, a d Defe da t espo ded i oppositio . Do kets a d . The otio ill e DENIED e ause Defe da t’s e ide e is ele a t to the Cou t’s a al sis of hethe Plai tiff’s e ide e o stitutes e Dockets.Justia.com a d ate ial e ide e ot efo e the ALJ a a ti g a e a d fo o side atio of su h e ide e the ALJ pu sua t to “e te e of “e tio g . Plai tiff’s otio to strike Do ket is ithout erit. Plai tiff alleges disa ilit , i pa t, due to se e e, o o atio all sig ifi a t, u e plai ed ps hoge i t e o of the ight uppe e t e it . “ee ALJ’s de isio at ad i ist ati e e o d AR , p. ide tif i g this as Plai tiff’s sole se e e i pai e t. The ALJ fou d that Plai tiff is ot disa led e ause she etai s the a ilit to pe fo ele a t le i al o k. AR, p. apa it RFC to pe fo this o k, the ALJ ga e g eat eight to the opi io of o e ti e e a i i g thi gs that, Plai tiff is a le to sit, sta d, alk, lift a d ha dle o je ts efe i g to D . M Call’s opi io at AR, p. a d fou d, a o g othe ithout u h diffi ult . ALJ’s . O appeal of the ALJ’s de isio to the Appeals Cou il, Plai tiff su that D . M Call as ot a ualified, pe the e ui e e ts of C.F.R. a d offe a opi io o hat Plai tiff a still do despite he i pai e a i atio he past . I fi di g that Plai tiff etai s the ph si al esidual fu tio al sou e Mi hael W. M Call, J ., M.D. Id. D . M Call e a i ed Plai tiff i de isio at AR, p. itted e ide e suggesti g . g, to e a i e Plai tiff e ts e ause, at the ti e of the , he as ot li e sed i Ke tu k . “pe ifi all , Plai tiff su itted e ide e to the effe t that Plai tiff as li e sed to p a ti e de atolog i Ke tu k u til . “ee Plai tiff’s e ide e i supple e tal ad i ist ati e e o d, Do ket , o sisti g of a a ti e ph si ia s o li e data ase p i t out. “e tio . g p o ides, i pe ti e t pa t, as follo s: Who e ill select to perfor a co sultati e exa i atio . a We ill pu hase a o sultati e e a i atio o l f o a ualified edi al sou e. The edi al sou e a e ou o ph si ia o ps hologist, o a othe sou e. … B ualified, e ea that the edi al sou e ust e u e tl li e sed i the “tate a d ha e the t ai i g a d e pe ie e to pe fo the t pe of e a i atio o test e ill e uest …. Plai tiff does ot allege that D . M Call la ked the t ai i g a d e pe ie e to pe fo the t pe of e a i atio e uested. Not ithsta di g Plai tiff’s e ide e, the Appeals Cou il de li ed the e ie the ALJ’s de isio , the e e de i g the ALJ’s de isio the Co e ie . Cotto . “e eta , F. d , issio e ’s fi al de isio , su je t to the p ese t judi ial th Ci . . Plai tiff lai ed that a e a d is e ui ed e ause of the ALJ’s elia e o a u edi al sou e opi io . Do ket , pp. . Defe da t su as li e sed to p a ti e edi i e as a eside t/fello i o sisti g of a ualified itted e ide e that, i fa t, D . M Call . “ee Defe da t’s e ide e, Do ket , edi al eside ts o li e data ase p i t out . While ot uestio i g its a u a , Plai tiff o ed to st ike Defe da t’s e ide e, hi h sho s that D . M Call as, i fa t, li e sed i Ke tu k at the ti e of his e a i atio a d opi io . A o di g to Plai tiff, he e ide e ut ot Defe da t’s is pa t of the ad i ist ati e e o d, hi h this Cou t a o side i o du ti g its judi ial e ie . “ee otio to st ike, Do ket , p. [T]he e o d efo e the age at the ti e that it ade its fi al de isio as that D . Mi hael M Call J . as ot a li e sed ph si ia at the ti e that he e aluated a d e de ed his opi io i M s. Ha iso ’s lai . Plai tiff’s a gu e t is u pe suasi e e ause it fails to e og ize that, fo pu poses of “e te e judi ial e ie , eithe he e ide e o Defe da t’s is pa t of the ad i ist ati e e o d. A e ide e that as ot efo e the ALJ – hethe fi st su a ot fai l e o side ed the Cou t i dete su sta tial e ide e. “ee Cli e . Co issio e , afte the ALJ's de isio a e o side ed itted to the Appeals Cou il o to this Cou t – i i g hethe the ALJ’s de isio as suppo ted F. d , th Ci . E ide e su itted the Cou t o l fo the li ited pu pose of dete i i g hethe to g a t a “e te e e a d . While Plai tiff has failed to o e fo a “e te e e a d, the Cou t ill o side Plai tiff’s e ide e i that light. “e te e autho izes a e a d fo o side atio of e e ide e if Plai tiff sho s that the e ide e is ate ial a d the e as good ause fo ot su itti g it to the ALJ. E ide e is ate ial o l if 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. “ize o e . “e eta , , th Ci . F. d . Plai tiff has failed to de o st ate ate ialit of he e e ide e i di ati g D . M Call as li e sed to p a ti e de atolog i e ause, if p ese ted ith su h e ide e, the ALJ ould likel ha e si pl dis o e ed the o te t of Defe da t’s e ide e a d elied o D . MCall’s opi io just the sa e. Due to la k of ate ialit , the Cou t ill DENY Plai tiff’s otio to st ike Do ket . The ALJ’s de isio as supported y su sta tial e ide e. The ALJ did ot e i el i g o D . M Call’s edi al opi io that Plai tiff is a le to sit, sta d, alk, lift a d ha dle o je ts p. ithout u h diffi ult . De isio at AR, p. efe i g to opi io at AR, . Plai tiff’s sole e ai i g o te tio is that the ALJ e ed i de li i g to gi e o t olli g eight to the disa li g edi al opi io of he t eati g ph si ia . Due to illegi ilit of that opi io a d la k of suppo ti g o je ti e edi al data oth i the opi io itself a d i the t eat e t e o ds , the a gu e t is u pe suasi e. I No e e , t eati g ph si ia Ri ha d Blalo k o pleted, at Plai tiff’s e uest, the Ph si al Residual Fu tio al Capa it Questio I Ja ua lift/ a ai e at AR, pp. . , t eati g eu ologist Ch istophe Ki g stated that he ag ee[d] ith all of the est i tio s fou d i “e tio Questio ai e. Questio , a of D . Blalo k’s Questio ai e. AR, p. . “e tio of the ai e o sists of Plai tiff’s est i tio s ith espe t to he a ilities to sit, sta d, alk, a d du i g a hou o ki g da . It is u disputed that a epta e of the “e tio li itatio s opi ed the t eati g ph si ia s ould p e lude all full ti e o k a d e de Plai tiff disa led. Alte ati el , the Cou t a epts the Co issio e ’s positio oti e of Defe da t’s e ide e e ause it o stitutes a pu li hose a u a a ot easo a l e uestio ed. “ee Co Do ket , iti g Passa . Cit of Colu us, Fed.App . that that the Cou t a o side a d take judi ial e o d hose e iste e o o te ts p o e fa ts issio e ’s espo se i oppositio to otio to st ike, , WL iti g Fed.R.E id. . A t eati g sou e’s suppo ted edi al opi io is e titled to o t olli g eight o l if it is ell edi all a epta le li i al a d la o ato diag osti te h i ues a d is ot i o siste t ith the othe su sta tial e ide e i ou ase e o d. Co t olli g eight is a te C.F.R. . . of a t i the se se that, e e if it is ot e titled to o t olli g eight, a t eati g ph si ia ’s opi io a e e titled to g eate eight tha a othe opi io i the ad i ist ati e e o d. “ee “e tio . Whe e [the “o ial “e u it Ad i ist atio ] do ot gi e the t eati g sou e's opi io o t olli g eight, e appl the fa to s listed i pa ag aphs i a d se tio i dete ii of this se tio , as ell as the fa to s i pa ag aphs th ough of this i i g the eight to gi e the opi io . The t eati g ph si ia s’ disa li g edi al opi io s e e ot e titled to o t olli g o ase dispositi e eight e ause: . D . Blalo k o pleted the Questio se tio s of the Questio ai e a d ai e i his o ostl illegi le ha d iti g. The that asked D . Blalo k to ide tif the o je ti e li i al ases i suppo t of his disa li g li itatio s a e i suffi ie tl legi le. . Plai tiff has failed to ide tif a o je ti e edi al data i the t eat e t otes of D s. Blalo k a d Ki g that a a ted disa li g li itatio s. . The o l se e e, o o atio all sig ifi a t, i pai e t e og ized u e plai ed ps hoge i t e o of the ight uppe e t e it . ALJ’s de isio , AR, p. po tio s of the Questio . The legi le algia a d a host of asso iated su je ti e pto s. Be ause Plai tiff has ot ide tified the illegi le diag oses o poi ted the Cou t to e ide e The fa to s a e: Le gth of the t eat e t elatio ship a d the f e ue of e a i atio ; atu e a d e te t of the t eat e t elatio ship; suppo ta ilit ; o siste ; spe ializatio ; a d othe fa to s. A o di g to the Questio ai e a d D . Blalo k’s espo ses: . F e ue a d le gth of o ta t: . Diag oses: [illegi le], fi o algia, [illegi le], [illegi le], [illegi le], h pe lipidosis as ai e i di ate that D . Blalo k assig ed disa li g li itatio s ased upo the p ese e of othe , o t e o diag oses i ludi g fi o s the ALJ i the ad i ist ati e e o d suppo ti g thei e iste e, she has ai ed he ight to el o the t eati g sou e’s ide tifi atio of disa li g li itatio s ased the eupo . . The ALJ ide tified su sta tial ases fo gi i g little eight to the Questio D s. Blalo k a d Ki g. “ee ALJ’s de isio at AR, p. ai e fi di gs of While oth Do to s t eated the lai a t u e ous ti es, the e is little e ide e f o thei t eat e t otes o othe sou es that suppo t the li itatio s gi e [the ] . Order Fo the easo s stated a o e, Plai tiff’s otio fo su a judg e t Do ket otio to st ike Do ket is DENIED; Plai tiff’s is DENIED; the fi al de isio of the Co issio e is AFFIRMED; a d Plai tiff’s o plai t is DI“MI““ED. December 21, 2016 . P og osis: fai . List ou patie t’s s pto s, i ludi g pai , dizzi ess, fatigue, et .: us le a hes, t e o s, a th algias, i digestio , agi al leedi g . If ou patie t has pai , ha a te ize the atu e, lo atio , f e ue , p e ipitati g fa to s, a d se e it of ou patie t’s pai : h o i diffuse pai , [illegi le], sha p, o . dull, [illegi le], a s, shoulde s, a k, hips. [illegi le]. Pt. ates pai as [illegi le] s ale AR, p. .
]]>
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.
