GUTHRIE v. ASTRUE et al, No. 2:2012cv00260 - Document 13 (W.D. Pa. 2013)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER denying 7 plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 11 defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed. See Memorandum Judgment Order for further details. Signed by Judge Gustave Diamond on 2/18/13. (kw)

Download PDF

GUTHRIE v. ASTRUE et al Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOHN GUTHRIE, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 12-260 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE , COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER AND NOW, I f' thi s /2----' day of February, 2013, upon due consideration of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to plaintiff's request for review of the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying his application for disability insurance benefits (\\DIB") under Title II of the Social Security Act, IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (Document No. 11) be, and the same hereby is, granted and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Document No.7) be, and the same hereby is, denied. As the factfinder, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") has an obligation to weigh all of the facts and evidence of record and may rej ect or discount any evidence reasons for doing so. Cir. 1999). substantial 'A072 (Rev. 8/82) findings, if Plummer v. Apfel, the ALJ explains the 186 F.3d 422, (3d 429 Where the ALJ's findings of fact are supported by evidence, even if it a reviewing would have court decided is bound by the factual those inquiry Dockets.Justia.com differently. 2001). Fargnoli v. Moreover I it is Massanari well 247 F.3d 34 l settled determined merely by the presence of that 38 1 (3d Cir. disability impairments is not but by the I effect that those impairments have upon an individual/s ability to perform substantial gainful activity. 125 129 1 (3d Cir. 1991). These Jones v. Sullivan well-established 954 F.2d l principles preclude a reversal or remand of the ALJ/s decision here because the record contains substantial evidence to support the ALJ I s findings and conclusions. Plaintiff filed his application for DIB on October 271 2008 1 alleging disability beginning on March 111 2008 1 due to lower back pain and l fatigue sleep disorder l depression. l acid reflux Plaintiff/s plaintiff/s request I hypertension i application was anxiety l denied. an ALJ held a hearing on May 20 1 At 2010. On June 241 2010 1 the ALJ issued a decision finding that plaintiff not disabled. The Appeals Council denied plaintiff/s request for review on January 6 1 2012 1 making the ALJ/s decision the final decision of the Commissioner. Plaintiff The instant action followed. who has a high school education l l was 41 years old when the ALJ issued his decision and is classified as a younger individual under the regulations. 20 C.F.R. §404.1563(c). Plaintiff has past relevant work experience as a warehouse worker and coal miner l but he has not engaged in substantial gainful activity at any time since his alleged onset date of disability. After reviewing plaintiff I S medical records and hearing testimony from plaintiff and a vocational expert at the hearing <!it.AOn (Rev. 8182) - 2 l the ALJ concluded that meaning of the Act. plaintiff is not disabled within the Although the medical evidence established that plaintiff suffers from the severe impairments of degenerative disc disease/degenerative arthritis of the lumbar/lumbosacral spine, lumbosacral strain/sprain, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and obesity, those impairments, alone or in combination, do not meet or equal the criteria of any of the listed impairments set forth in Appendix 1 of 20 C.F.R., Subpart P, Regulation No.4 ("Appendix 1") . The ALJ found that plaintiff retains the residual functional capacity to perform a range of light work with certain additional limitations. all walking Plaintiff requires a sit/stand option, he should do on level and even surfaces, postural movements occasionally, and he can perform but he cannot kneel, climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds. crawl or In addition, plaintiff must avoid exposure to temperature extremes, wet or humid conditions, environmental pollutants and hazards. Further, plaintiff must work in a low stress environment that does not involve production line type of pace or independent decision making responsibilities (collectively, the "RFC Finding") . As a result of these limitations, the ALJ determined that plaintiff could not perform his past relevant work. based upon the vocational expert's testimony, However, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff's age, educational background, work experience and residual functional capacity enable him to perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy, such as a ~A072 (Rev. 8/82) - 3 photographic machine operator, folding machine operator, assembler of printed products, laminator, ink printer or patcher. Accordingly, the ALJ found that plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the Act. The Act defines "disability" as the inability to engage in substantial gainful activity by reason of a physical or mental impairment that can be expected to last for a continuous period of at least twelve months. 42 U.S.C. §423(d) (1) (A). The impairment or impairments must be so severe that the claimant "is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education and work experience, engage substantial gainful work which exists " in any other kind of in the national economy 42 U.S.C. §423 (d) (2) (A) . The Commissioner has promulgated regulations that incorporate a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether a claimant is disabled. The ALJ must determine: (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activitYi (2) if not, whether he has a severe impairment; (3) if so, whether his impairment meets or equals the criteria listed in Appendix 1i (4) if not, whether the claimant's impairment performing his past relevant work; and (5) prevents if so, him from whether the claimant can perform any other work that exists in the national economy, in light of his age, education, OI},Aon (Rev. 8/82) - 4 work experience and residual functional capacity.l 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(a) (4). claimant is found disabled or not disabled at any step, inquiry is unnecessary. If the further Id. In this case, plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred at step 5 of the sequential evaluation process because he failed to consider and evaluate two medical reports and opinions from Dr. William Mitchell, who was plaintiff's treating orthopaedic physician. The court finds that this argument lacks merit. In entitled Perform November "Medical 2008, Dr. Source Work Related Mitchell Statement Physical completed of a Claimant's Activities ," on (R. 290). report Ability which plaintiff as being unable to perform the sitting, walking demands of light work. form he to rated standing and Plaintiff acknowledged in his brief that the ALJ considered and rejected Dr. Mitchell's assessment of his physical functional capabilities. Plaintiff complains that the ALJ failed to mention, let alone consider or weigh, two subsequent reports from Dr. Mitchell, one dated July 7, 2009, and the other dated May 13, 2010, in which the doctor concluded that plaintiff "is not a candidate for regular work activity on a continuing basis." (R. 371, 421). Plaintiff is incorrect. At pages 10 and 11 of the ALJ's decision, he specifically lResidual functional capacity is defined as that which an individual still is able to do despite the limitations caused by his impairments. 20 C.F.R. §404.1545(a) (1) i Fargnoli, 247 F.3d at 40. In assessing a claimant's residual functional capacity, the ALJ is required to consider his ability to meet the physical, mental, sensory and other requirements of work. 20 C.F.R. §404.1545(a) (4). ~A072 (Rev. 8/82) - 5 referenced and summarized both Dr. Mitchell's July 2009 report and the May 2010 report, and noted plaintiff is unable to work. decision, the ALJ stated Dr. (R. that Mitchell's 21-22). opinion that At page 12 of the he rejected assessment of plaintiff's functional capacity, Dr. Mitchell's as well as his opinion that plaintiff is unable to work: the undersigned rej ects the opinions of Dr. Mitchell contained in the assessment form submitted in November 2008 to the extent they conflict with [the RFC Finding]. These contrary opinions and the opinions of Dr. Mitchell on the ultimate issue reserved to the Commissioner are rejected as they are found to be based primarily on the claimant's subjective complaints and are not supported by the objective findings. (R. 23). Although the ALJ did not reference Dr. Mitchell's July 2009 and May 2010 reports by their dates in the above statement, the ALJ stated that he rejected Dr. Mitchell's opinion on the ·ultimate issue reserved to the Commissioner, 1/ which is whether plaintiff is capable of performing work that exists in the national economy. As the foregoing demonstrates, plaintiff is incorrect that the ALJ did not mention, let alone consider Mitchell's July 2009 and May 2010 reports. or weigh, Dr. To the contrary, the ALJ discussed both reports in detail, stated that he rejected Dr. Mitchell's opinion that plaintiff is unable to work and explained his reasons for doing so. The ALJ's consideration and assessment of Dr. Mitchell's reports and opinions was appropriate and in 'AQn (Rev. 8/82) - 6 accordance with the regulations. 2 In conclusion, after carefully and methodically considering all of the medical evidence of record, the ALJ determined that plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the Act. ALJ/s findings and conclusions are supported evidence and are not otherwise erroneous. by Therefore I The substantial the decision of the Commissioner must be affirmed. ~~ Gustave Diamond United States District Judge cc: Robert W. Gillikin, Esq. Rutter Mills, LLP 160 W. Brambleton Ave. Norfolk, VA 23510 Michael Colville Assistant U.S. Attorney 700 Grant Street Suite 4000 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 2According to the regulations, the ALJ will give an oplnlon the weight he deems appropriate based on such factors as whether the physician treated or examined the claimant, whether the opinion is supported by medical signs and laboratory findings and whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(c) (1)-(4). As the ALJ explained, he rejected Dr. Mitchell's opinion because it was based on plaintiff's subjective complaints, which the ALJ found to be lacking credibility, and because the doctor s opinion was not supported by other objective evidence of record. (R. 18, 23). In that regard, the ALJ summarized in detail the opinions of five other specialists who examined plaintiff, none of whom concluded that he was as limited as Dr. Mitchell found or that he was unable to work. (R. 18-20). l ~A072 (Rev. 8/82) - 7

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.