Dyson v. Social Security Administration, No. 2:2016cv12677 - Document 18 (E.D. La. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16 . Accordingly, defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED and plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 8/30/2017.(cg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dyson v. Social Security Administration Doc. 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MICHAEL DYSON CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 16-12677 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION SECTION “R” (3) ORD ER AN D REASON S The Court, having reviewed de novo the complaint, 1 plaintiff’s m otion for sum m ary judgm ent, 2 defendant’s cross-m otion for sum m ary judgment, 3 the record, the applicable law, the Magistrate J udge’s Report and Recom mendation, 4 and plaintiff’s objections, 5 hereby approves the Magistrate J udge’s Report and Recomm endation and adopts it as its opinion. Plaintiff has three objections to the Report and Recomm endation. First, plaintiff argues that the Adm inistrative Law J udge (ALJ ) erred in according little weight to the opinion of plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. J ackson. 6 Dr. J ackson completed two check-the-box m ental capacity assessments indicating that plaintiff has m oderate to m arked lim itations in 1 2 3 4 5 6 R. Doc. 1. R. Doc. 12. R. Doc. 15. R. Doc. 16. R. Doc. 17. R. Doc. 17-1 at 1-9. Dockets.Justia.com understanding, rem embering, and carrying out sim ple instructions and m arked to extrem e lim itations in social interaction, concentration, persistence, and adaption. 7 The ALJ concluded that these lim itations were not consistent with Dr. J ackson’s own treatm ent notes reflecting the plaintiff’s intact thought processes and cooperative behavior, were contradicted by and outweighed by the opinion of exam ining physician Dr. Arseneau, and were inconsistent with other evidence in the record. 8 Plaintiff argues that Dr. J ackson’s opinion was supported by treatm ent notes indicating flashbacks, paranoid delusions, intrusive thoughts, nightm ares, an up-and-down m ood, and only fair judgment and insight. 9 But these sym ptoms do not directly relate to plaintiff’s concentration and persistence or his ability to understand, rem ember, and carry out instructions. Moreover, the ALJ took into account plaintiff’s psychiatric concerns in concluding that he suffers from a severe im pairm ent of anxiety disorder that som ewhat lim its his ability to engage in direct contact with others. 10 The Magistrate J udge properly concluded that the ALJ had good cause to accord little weight to Dr. J ackson’s opinion because it was 7 8 9 10 R. Doc. 10 -2 at 28; R. Doc. 10 -7 at 149; R. Doc 10 -9 at 156. R. Doc. 10 -2 at 28. R. Doc. 17-1 at 2. R. Doc. 10 -2 at 20 , 25. 2 conclusory and unsupported by evidence. 11 See N ew ton v. Apfel, 20 9 F.3d 448, 456 (5th Cir. 20 0 0 ); Leggett v. Chater, 67 F.3d 558, 566 (5th Cir. 1995). Second, plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in giving lim ited weight to the opinion of his treating physician Dr. Gaines. 12 The ALJ found that some of the exertional lim itations identified by Dr. Gaines were inconsistent with the objective evidence, including exam ination records indicating plaintiff’s m inim ally restricted range of m otion and plaintiff’s ability to walk without assistance. 13 The ALJ pointed to specific m edical evidence in the record, including the findings of exam ining physician Dr. Bienert, to support the conclusion that plaintiff does not experience all the exertional lim itations identified by Dr. Gaines. 14 The Magistrate J udge correctly found that substantial evidence supports the weight that the ALJ accorded to the opinions of both Dr. J ackson and Dr. Gaines. 15 Finally, plaintiff objects to the ALJ ’s credibility findings. 16 The ALJ concluded that plaintiff’s statements about the intensity and persistence of his sym ptoms were not entirely credible because, am ong other reasons, 11 12 13 14 15 16 R. Doc. 16 at 6-8. R. Doc. 17-1. R. Doc. 10 -2 at 27. Id. at 21-23, 26-27; see also R. Doc. 10 -12 at 1-9. R. Doc. 16 at 10 . R. Doc. 17-1 at 9. 3 plaintiff’s account was inconsistent with his m ild clinical findings and his m inim al or delayed treatment. 17 The ALJ also noted that plaintiff’s credibility was dim inished by his use of a cane during consultative exam inations despite his observed ability to walk without assistance. 18 Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions, 19 the ALJ did not base her credibility finding only or prim arily on plaintiff’s ability to engage in daily activities. The ALJ had the “benefit of perceiving first-hand the claim ant at the hearing” and was best positioned to m ake credibility determ inations. Falco v. Shalala, 27 F.3d 160 , 165, 164 n.18 (5th Cir. 1994). The Court finds that the ALJ ’s denial of plaintiff’s claim was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, defendant’s cross-m otion for sum m ary judgm ent is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s m otion for sum m ary judgm ent is DENIED and plaintiff’s com plaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJ UDICE. 30th New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ _ _ _ _ day of August, 20 17. _____________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 17 18 19 R. Doc. 10 -2 at 21-24. Id. at 24. R. Doc. 17-1 at 9. 4
]]>
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.
