Jones v. Astrue, No. 1:2009cv00206 - Document 13 (D.R.I. 2010)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 8 Motion to Reverse Decision of the Commissioner; granting 9 Motion to Affirm the Decision of the Commissioner; adopting 10 Report and Recommendations. So Ordered by Judge William E. Smith on 6/2/10. (Jackson, Ryan)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND ___________________________________ ) ) ) Plainitff, ) ) vs. ) ) MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, ) Social Security Administration, ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________) GREGORY JONES, C.A. No. 09-206 S OPINION AND ORDER WILLIAM E. SMITH, United States District Judge. Plaintiff brought this action to reverse a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security (the Commissioner ) denying his request for disability benefits. The Commissioner opposes Plaintiff s request, and has moved for an order affirming the Commissioner s decision. Magistrate Judge Almond issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Commissioner s motion be granted. (See Report and Recommendation, C.A. No. 09- 206 10, S, Doc. Plaintiff objection. No. objects to Feb. the 19, R&R, 2010 but the (hereinafter Court R&R ).) overrules the For the reasons set forth below, and those stated in the R&R, the Court accepts the R&R in full and affirms the Commissioner s decision. In considering an objection to an R&R, the Court conducts a de novo determination of those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings magistrate judge. or recommendations made by the 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2009); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Jasty v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc., 528 F.3d 28, 33 (1st Cir. 2008). Plaintiff objects that the R&R mistakenly approved of the reasons given denying by the Plaintiff s Administrative claim on the Law Judge ( ALJ ) Commissioner s for behalf. Specifically, Plaintiff contends Judge Almond should have found the ALJ erred by giving significant probative weight to the opinion of a consultative physician, Dr. Amir regarding Plaintiff s functional capabilities. 404.1520(e) (explaining claimant s residual disability). Dr. that the functional Missaghian See 20 C.F.R. § Commissioner capacity considered to find Plaintiff therefore not disabled. could perform considers in Plaintiff some standing, walking, and lifting activities. ALJ Missaghian, light a assessing capable of This led the work, and was (See Admin. R., C.A. No. 09-206 S, at 12-14, May 29, 2009, (hereinafter Tr. ).) The flaw with Dr. Missaghian s evaluation, Plaintiff argues, was that he offered it in January 2007, almost two years before the ALJ issued his decision. Consequently, Dr. Missaghian s opinion was based on 2 incomplete information, Plaintiff asserts, because he relevant medical records submitted in 2007 and 2008. should have either Plaintiff s hearing retained or a medical contacted a expert state lacked The ALJ to testify at agency expert to perform an updated review of Plaintiff s medical file. There are two problems with this argument. First, unlike in the case Plaintiff relies on, Alcantara v. Astrue, Plaintiff has not demonstrated the record was significantly incomplete at the time of Dr. Missaghian s review because there was a later material change. 334, 2007 WL Alcantara v. Astrue, 257 Fed. Appx. 333, 4328148, at *1 (1st Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (unpublished decision) (observing that the record repeatedly indicated that the [claimant] deteriorated ). Rather, all Plaintiff does is quote findings dated June 2007, and then pose the question, [w]ho but someone with medical expertise can say that this is not a material change? (Pl. s Obj. to R&R at 2.) This turns the applicable burden in a Social Security appeal upside-down. The Court must defer to the Commissioner's findings of fact, unless the plaintiff can demonstrate they are not supported by substantial evidence. Ward v. Comm r of Social Security, 211 F.3d 652, 655 (1st Cir. 2000). Plaintiff would have the Court assume the ALJ got it wrong absent an expert medical opinion to the contrary. 3 Under the correct standard of review, the ALJ s decision must be affirmed. The ALJ did consider the medical files from 2007 cited by Plaintiff, which related to a neck impairment, and explained why they did not confirm the severity of Plaintiff s alleged symptoms. The ALJ commented that records through September 2007, while reflecting complaints of neck and left upper extremity pain and numbness, spasm or neurological deficits. did not document (Tr. at 10.) ongoing He also observed that the Plaintiff received strictly conservative[] treatment for his neck condition through 2008. (Id.) See Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 656-57 (4th Cir. 2005) (finding that a recommendation of conservative treatment supported a medical opinion that the claimant could perform light work). A reasonable mind, reviewing the evidence in the record as a whole, could accept these facts as adequate to support the ALJ s conclusion that later evidence supported Dr. Missaghian s findings. Rodriguez v. Sec y of Health & Human Servs., 647 F.2d 218, 222 (1st Cir. 1981). Second, Judge Almond is correct that, carried to its logical result, Plaintiffs argument means an ALJ can never make a disability decision opinion. (See unequipped to R&R assess without at any 20.) commissioning Otherwise, files medical opinion in the record. 4 added a the after new ALJ the medical would most be recent This proposition defies the principle that there is no need for some super-evaluator, a single physician who gives the factfinder an overview of the entire case. Evangelista v. Sec y of Health & Human Servs., 826 F.2d 136, 144 (1st Cir. 1987). Indeed, accepting Plaintiff s stance on this point would efface the ALJ s authority to interpret the evidence. says the meaning ALJ of evaluation. was not treatment medically records qualified that post-date determine Dr. the Missaghian s It is true that an ALJ cannot substitute his own views for uncontroverted medical opinion. 172 F.3d 31, 35 (1st Cir. 1999). here. to Plaintiff Nguyen v. Chater, But that is not what happened The ALJ did not reject an expert s interpretation of objective medical findings in favor of his own view of what they might mean. Cf. Walker v. Barnhart, No. Civ.A. 04-11752-DPW, 2005 WL 2323169, at *18 (D. Mass. Aug. 23, 2005) ( By reaching a conclusion about Walker s expected absences that contradicted the only medical evidence directly on point, the ALJ appears to have substitute[d] his own views for uncontroverted medical opinion, an analytical operation he is not at liberty to undertake. ) (quoting Nguyen, 172 F.3d at 35). Rather, the ALJ determined that Dr. Missaghian s opinion from 2007 was supported by medical facts documented both before and after that time. In doing so, the ALJ fulfilled his duty to piece together the relevant medical facts. Evangelista, 826 F.2d at 144. 5 For these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff s motion and GRANTS the Commissioner s motion. is therefore affirmed. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ William E. Smith William E. Smith United States District Judge Date: June 2, 2010 6 The Commissioner s judgment
]]>
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.
