Johnson v. Social Security Administration, No. 6:2011cv00259 - Document 21 (E.D. Okla. 2012)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kimberly E. West (sjw, Chambers)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA CHERYL L. JOHNSON, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant. Case No. CIV-11-259-KEW OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Cheryl L. Johnson (the ''Claimantu} requests judicial review of the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the "Commissioner") denying Claimant's application for disability benefits under the Social Security Act. appeals the decision of the Administrative Law Judge Claimant ("ALJ") and asserts that the Commissioner erred because the ALJ incorrectly determined that discussed below, Claimant it is was the not disabled. finding of this For the Court reasons that the Commissioner's decision should be and is AFFIRMED. Social Security Law and Standard of Review Disability under the Social Security Act is defined as the "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment . . . " 42 U.S.C. § 423(d) (1) (A}. A claimant is disabled under the Social Security Act "only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists §423(d) (2) (A). in the national economy. 42 u.s.c. Social Security regulations implement a five-step sequential process to evaluate a disability claim. See, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. 1 Judicial review of the Commissioner's determination is limited in scope by 42 U.S.C. two inquiries: § first, 405(g). This Court's review is limited to whether the 1 decision was supported by Step one requires the claimant to establish that he is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, as defined by 20 C. F. R. §§ 404.1510, 416.910. Step two requires that the claimant establish that he has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limit his ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1521, 416.921. If the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity (step one) or if the claimant's impairment is not medically severe (step two), disability benefits are denied. At step three, the claimant's impairment is compared with certain impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. A claimant suffering from a listed impairment or impairments "medically equivalent" to a listed impairment is determined to be disabled without further inquiry. If not, the evaluation proceeds to step four, where claimant must establish that he does not retain the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform his past relevant work. If the claimant's step four burden is met, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to establish at step five that work exists in significant numbers in the national economy which the claimant - taking into account his age, education, work experience, and RFC - can perform. Disability benefits are denied if the Commissioner shows that the impairment which precluded the performance of past relevant work does not preclude alternative work. See generally, Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-51 (lOth Cir. 1988). 2 substantial evidence; and, Cir. whether the correct legal Hawkins v. Chater, 113 F.3d 1162, 1164 standards were applied. (lOth second, 1997) (citation omitted). The term "substantial evidence" has been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court to require "more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Edison Perales, Co. v. 402 U.S. NLRB, 389, Consolidated (1938)). The court may not re-weigh the evidence nor substitute Health & Human Servs., 933 F.2d 799, U.S. {1971) (quoting its discretion for that of the agency. 305 401 Casias v. 800 197, 229 Secretary of {lOth Cir. 1991}. Nevertheless, the court must review the record as a whole, and the "substantiality of the evidence must take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight." Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 488 (1951); see also, Casias, 933 F.2d at 800-01. Claimant's Background Claimant was born on July 1, 1962 and was 46 years old at the decision. Claimant completed her education through the eleventh grade. Claimant worked in the past as a time of the ALJ' s cashier at a truck stop. beginning August 14, 2006 Claimant alleges an inability to work due to 3 limitations resulting from diabetes mellitus with neuropathy, degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine post surgery, diminished eyesight, pain, carpal side effects from medications, tunnel and syndrome, migraine headaches. Procedural History On August 18, 2006, Claimant protectively filed for disability insurance benefits under Title II {42 U.S.C. § 401, et seq.} of the Social Security Act. Claimant's application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. On November 7, 2008, an administrative hearing was held before ALJ Lantz McClain in Sallisaw, Oklahoma. On January 29, 2009, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision. June 10, decision. 2 00 9, the Appeals On Council denied review of the ALJ' s Claimant appealed the denial and obtained a reversal and remand on appeal in this Court on August 24, 2010. On March 9, 2011, a supplemental hearing was held before ALJ Osly F. Deramus in Poteau, Oklahoma. unfavorable decision. On May 31, 2011, the ALJ issued The Appeals Council denied review. another As a result, the decision of the ALJ represents the Commissioner's final decision for purposes of further appeal. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.981, 416.1481. Decision of the Administrative Law Judge The ALJ made her decision at 4 step five of the sequential evaluation. He determined that while Claimant suffered from severe impairments, she did not meet a listing and retained the residual functional capacity (''RFC") to perform a full range of sedentary work with limitations. Errors Alleged for Review Claimant asserts the ALJ committed error in (1) improperly discounting Claimant's treating physician's Attending Physician's Statement; and (2} failing to reach a proper RFC. Evaluation of the Treating Physician's Opinion Claimant first contends the ALJ failed to properly consider the opinion of her treating physician, Dr. Christina Jefferson. Dr. Jefferson completed multiple Attending Physician's Statements. In the first undated Statement which this Court discussed in its prior decision, Dr. Jefferson writes on the statement that Claimant would need to take unscheduled breaks in an 8 hour workday; would experience "good days" and "bad days"; would be absent from work more than four days per month; is not capable of working 8 hours per day and a 40 hour work week; is not expected to make a fundamental or marked change for the better in the future; cannot use her feed for repetitive movements such as for foot controls; cannot use her hands for repetitive actions, pushing and pulling, and fine manipulation. 5 simple grasping, She added a comment "dropping things." In a second (Tr. 361). Statement completed September 16, 2008, Dr. Jefferson found Claimant suffered from various conditions then estimated the effect these conditions would have upon Claimant's ability to work. She stated Claimant would need to take unscheduled breaks in an 8 hour workday, have "good days" and "bad days", likely to be absent from work as a result of the impairments or treatment more than 4 days per month, is not capable of working 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week, is not expected to experience a change of the better in the future, could not use her feet for repetitive foot movements, and could not use her hands for simple grasping, pushing and pulling, and fine manipulation. the "comments" section of "dropping things." the Statement, Dr. Jefferson Under stated (Tr. 361). Dr. Jefferson completed an identical Statement dated September 16, 2008. (Tr. 275). On September 9, 2010, Dr. Jefferson completed another such Statement with the only difference being the omission of the "dropping things" comment. The ALJ concluded that Dr. {Tr. 755). Jefferson's statements are not supported by the medical evidence. He concluded With due deference to the "treating physician rule", the undersigned is unable to give much weight to Dr. Jefferson's disability statements because they are not supported by appropriate clinical/diagnostic findings 6 that appear of record (including those of other reporting medical providers), because they are inconsistent with the preponderance of the credible evidence of record, and because of all of the other factors discussed supra. (Tr. 375). The ALJ evaluated Dr. Jefferson's opinions under the factors found in the regulations and in the case of Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297, extensive. 1300 (lOth Cir. 2003). The ALJ's analysis was He essentially rejected Dr. Jefferson's opinions stated in the multiple Attending Physician's Statements because (1) while Dr. Jefferson had a "bona fide treatment relationship" with Claimant, the actual medical findings in her progress notes do not support her opinion on Statements; ( 2) opinion is deficient medical documentation; disability reflected in the Attending the Attending Statements' "check-off" disability because ( 3) it does no medical not have evidence any supporting from any other physician supports the degree of functional limitation set forth by Dr. Jefferson; and {4) Dr. Jefferson's disability opinion invades the province of Defendant and the vocational expert witness. This Court has reviewed Dr. Jefferson's treatment records. Dr. Jefferson treated Claimant for a painful right breast from a boil on September 23, 2008 (Tr. 278-79), cancelled appointment on May 28, 2008 (Tr. 280-81), swollen right side of Claimant's face and sinusitis on March 25, 2008 7 (Tr. 284-85), and right upper quadrant pain on February 28, 2008 which resulted in an impression of a "normal radionuclide hepatobiliary scan." review of Jefferson's these records, subsequent this Court conclusions must of (Tr. 293). conclude extensive From a that Dr. disability reflected on the Attending Physician's Statements are not supported by her treatment records which provides support for the ALJ' s ultimate conclusion on this point. The Court next looks to whether support exists in the medical record from other sources. As this Court discussed in its prior findings, on June 5, 2000, Claimant was evaluated by Dr. J. Michael Stadefer. He diagnosed her with L1-2 disc protrusion with attendant focal canal stenosis, facet arthropathy, and clear-cut foraminal stenosis on the left side. (Tr. 350). Claimant had a longstanding history of back problems stemming back to her early 20's when she fell off of a cotton picker and fractured her back. (Tr. 323). On December 22, 2000, Claimant underwent surgery with a fusion from T-11 through L-3. In September of 2005, Csaba Kiss. (Tr. 324). Claimant came under the care of Dr. Dr. Kiss diagnosed Claimant with diabetes mellitus, type II, chest pain syndrome, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, GERD, and chronic sinusitis. (Tr. 194). In November of 2005, Claimant was diagnosed by Dr. Kiss with carpal tunnel syndrome, depression, fluid retention, and asthma attacks. 8 (Tr. 192). In September of 2006, Dr. Kiss diagnosed Claimant with diabetes mellitus, type II, hypertension, asthma, degenerative joint chronic and disc dyslipidemia, and depression. On December 19, Ronald Schatzman. low 2006, back disease (Tr. pain, and secondary spinal to stenosis, 190). Claimant was also evaluated by Dr. He diagnosed Claimant with diabetes mellitus, low back pain status post surgery with hardware placed still with pain and limited movements, ponderous and careful gait such that she would benefit from a walking aid, no sensation in stocking distribution up to her knees, arrhythmia by history, and obesity. (Tr. 210). On May 21, 2008, Claimant was evaluated by Dr. Arthur Johnson complaining of upper and lower back pain. Dr. Johnson diagnosed Claimant with lumbago, radiculopathy, degenerative disease of the lumbar spine, and post surgical changes. X-rays revealed good alignment of vertebral bodies with hardware spanning T-11 through L3 levels. In the lumbar spine, there was good preservation of vertebral body height as well as good preservation of disc space height with some disc space narrowing at the L-1/L-2 level. Evidence of significant degenerative changes at the facet joints were noted at L-4/L-5. He medication for her condition. On January 3, 2007, prescribed (Tr. therapy and 324). Claimant 9 physical underwent a consultative examination by Dr. Carmen Bird. occasionally Dr. Bird restricted Claimant to lifting/carrying lifting/carrying less than 10 pounds; hours in an workday; and 8 hour workday; pounds; 10 frequently standing and/or walking 2 sitting for 6 hours unlimited pushing/pulling. (Tr. in an 8 hour 216). Dr. Bird placed no other restriction upon Claimant. A Psychiatric Review Technique form was completed on Claimant by Dr. Laura Lochner on April 13, 2007. Dr. Lochner found Claimant suffered from the non-severe conditions of Affective Disorders and Anxiety-Related Disorders. (Tr. She 223). determined that Claimant had mild limitations on her activities of daily living; maintaining social functioning; persistence, or pace. and maintaining concentration, (Tr. 233). Dr. Lochner found Claimant's depression and anxiety did not impair her ability to function. at 90 or higher. Her I.Q. was estimated as average (Tr. 235). As noted by the ALJ, the functional limitations found by these physicians are sedentary work. supports Jefferson. the accommodated by and consistent with his Certainly, extent In sum, of nothing in these clinical findings debilitating this RFC of Court limitations finds no error found in the by Dr. ALJ' s consideration, weighing, and assessment of Dr. Jefferson's opinions represented in the Attending Physician's Statements. 10 RFC Determination In his decision, the ALJ found Claimant suffered from the severe impairments of status post remote low back surgery, carpal tunnel syndrome, and diabetes with diabetic neuropathy. (Tr. 367) . He concluded Claimant could perform a full range of sedentary work except that she could stoop, crouch, crawl, kneel, balance, and climb stairs only occasionally, she was unable to climb ladders, and she was unable to engage in activities requiring constant use of the hands for repetitive tasks such as keyboarding. (Tr. 371}. Based upon the testimony of the vocational expert testifying at the administrative hearing, the ALJ found Claimant could perform such jobs as document preparer (referred to by the ALJ in his decision as a ~document disorder") . (Tr. 382) . Claimant first contends the ALJ failed to consider her hand limitations. The ALJ adequately accommodated Claimant's hand limitations in his RFC evaluation by limiting her in engaging in the constant use of her hands. Claimant next states the ALJ failed to consider her sitting limitations. Claimant is correct that sedentary work generally requires a person to sit up to 6 hours in an 8 hour workday. No medical evidence has been identified in the record which would limit Claimant to less than this requirement. 11 Claimant also asserts the ALJ failed to consider the side effects of her medication. While Claimant did state that her medication made it unsafe for her to drive and made her sleepy, the medical record does not document these as limitations upon her ability to function or work. No error is found in the ALJ' s failure to include this limitation in his RFC assessment. Conclusion The decision of the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence and the correct legal standards were applied. this Court finds, Therefore, in accordance with the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the ruling of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration should be and is IT IS SO ORDERED this AFFIRMED. ~ay of July, 2012. ···.·.··.·· ... £~ ~r 12
]]>
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.
