Brown v. Berryhill, No. 7:2017cv00491 - Document 20 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 10/24/2018. (aab)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK' S OFFICE U.S.DIST.COURT AT RG NOKE,VA FILED IN THE UN ITED STA TES D ISTRICT COURT F0R THE W ESTERN D ISTRICT 0F V IR GINIA ROAN OK E D IVISION 22T 2# 2018 JUL ,D LEM CLERK BY: Et b c BRIAN D .BROW N, Plaintiff, CivilA ction N o.7:17CV00491 V. M EM OR AND UM O PIN IO N NAN CY A .BERRYH ILL,A cting Com m issionerofSocialSecurity, By:H on.Glen E.Conrad SeniorUnited StatesD istrictJudge Defendant. Plaintiffhas filed this action challenging the finaldecision ofthe Com m issionerofSocial Security denying plaintiff's claim s for disability insurance benetks and supplem ental security incomebenefitsundertheSocialSecurityAct,asamended,42U.S.C.jj416(i)and423,and42 U.S.C.j 1381etseq.,respectively. Jurisdiction ofthiscourtispursuantto42U.S.C.j405(g) and42U.S.C.j1383(c)(3). Thiscourt'sreview islimitedtoadeterminationastowhetherthere is substantialevidence to supportthe Com m issioner's conclusion thatplaintifffailed to m eetthe requirements for entitlem entto benefts underthe A ct. lf such substantialevidence exists,the fnaldecisionoftheCommissionermustbeaffrmed. Lawsv.Celebrezze,368F.2d640(4thCir. 1966). Stated briefly, substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence, considering the record as a w hole,as m ight be found adequate to supporta conclusion by a reasonablemind. Richardsonv.Perales,402U.S.389,401(1971). Theplaintift BrianD.Brown,wasbornonApril8,1971. Hedidnotgradl ptefrom high Brown v. Berryhill Doc. 20 schoolbut eventually earned a GED . M r.Brown has been em ployed as a warehouse w orker, automotiveaccessoryinstaller,andtruckdriver. (Tr.30,231). Helastworkedonaregularand sustained basisin 2014. (Tr.29,231). On April7,2014,M r.Brown filed applicationsfor disability insurance benefits and supplem entalsecurity incom e benefks. ln filing his current Dockets.Justia.com claim s, M r. Brown alleged that he becam e disabled for all form s of subsà ntial gainful employmentonMarch31,2014,duetobackproblemsandarthritis. (Tr.230). Atthetimeofan adm inistrative hearing on October25,2016,plaintiffam ended hisapplicationsso asto retlectan alleged disability onsetdate ofJanuary 1,2016. (Tr.30). Mr.Brown maintainsthathehas rem ained disabled to the present tim e. W ith respectto his application for disability insurance benefits,the record revealsthatM r.Brown m etthe insured status requirem ents ofthe Actatall relevanttimescovered by thefinaldecisionofthe Commissioner. SeeMenerally 42U.S.C.jj 416(i)and423(a). M r.Brow n's applicationswere denied upon initialconsideration and reconsideration. He thenrequestedandreceived aéqnovohearingandreview beforeanAdministrativeLaw Judge. ln an opinion dated Decem ber6,2016,theLaw Judge also detennined,afterapplying the five-step sequentialevaluationprocess,thatMr.Brom zisnotdisabled. See20C.F.R.jj404.1520 and 416.920.1 The Law Judge found that M r. Brow n suffers from several severe im pairm ents, including dysfunction ofthe majorjoints,osteoarthritisand allied disorders,degenerative disc disease,lum barspondylosis,and lum barpostlam inectom y syndrom e,butthatthese im pairm ents do not,eitherindividually orin combination,m eetorm edically equalthe requirem entsofa listed impairment. (Tr.13-14). The Law Judge then assessed M r.Brown's residualfunctional capacity asfollow s: After careful consideration of the entire record,the undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform a range of light work as detined in 20 C.F.R. (jjj 404.15674b)and 416.9674b)excepttheclaimantwouldretain the 1The processrequiresthe Law Judge to consider, i n sequence,whetheraclaimant:(1)isengaged in substantialgainfulactivity;(2)hmsasevereimpairment;(3)hasanimpairmentthatmeetsorequalstherequirements ofalistedimpairment;(4)canreturntohispastrelevantwork;and(5)ifnot,whetherhecanperlbrm otherworkinthe nationaleconomy. 20C.F.R.jj 404.1520 and416.920. Ifadecisioncanbereached atany step in the sequential evaluationprocess,furtherevaluation isunnecessary. Id. capacity to lift/cany twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently;sitforsix hoursin an eighthourw orkday;stand/walk six hours in an eight hour workday; pushing/pulling as m uch as lift/carry; occasionally use the right foot in operating of foot controls; frequently balance; and occasionally clim b ram ps and stairs,kneegl),stoop,crouch,and crawl. The claimant would additionally retain the capacity to w ithstand occasionalexposure to unprotected heights, m oving m echanical parts, and occasional operation ofam otorvehicle. (Tr.14). Given such a residualfunctionalcapacity,and afterconsidering testimony from a vocationalexperq the Law Judge determ ined thatM r.Brown is unable to perform any ofhispast relevantwork. (Tr.17). However,the Law Judge found thatM r.Brown retains sufficient functional capacity to perform other w ork roles existing in signiGcant num ber in the national economy. (Tr.18). Accordingly,theLaw JudgeconcludedthatM r.Brownisnotdisabled,and thathe isnotentitled to benefksundereitherfederalprogram. See generallv 20 C.F.R.jj 404.15204g)and416.920(g). TheLaw Judge'sopinionwasadoptedasthefinaldecisionofthe Com m issioner by the SocialSecurity A dm inistration'sA ppeals Council. Having exhausted all available adm inistrative remedies,M r.Brown hasnow appealed to thiscourt. W hile plaintiff may be disabled for certain form s of employment,the crucial facm al determ ination is whether plaintiff is disabled for al1 form s of substantialgainful em ploym ent. See 42 U.S.C.jj 423(d)(2)and 1382c(a). There arefourelementsofproofwhich mustbe consideredinmakingsuchananalysis. Theseelementsaresummarizedasfollows:(1)objective medicalfactsand clinicalfindings;(2)theopinionsandconclusionsoftreatingphysicians;(3) subjectiveevidenceofphysicalmanifestationsofimpairments,asdescribedthroughaclaimant's testimony;and(4)theclaimant'seducation,vocationalhistory,residualskills,andage. Vitekv. Finch,438F.2d 1157,1159-60 (4th Cir.1971);Underwoodv.Ribicoff,298F.2d850,851(4th Cir.1962). After a review of the record in this case,the court is constrained to conclude thatthe Com m issioner's finaldecision is supported by substantialevidence. The record revealsthatM r. Brown received treatm ent for back pain from doctors at Coastal Spine & Pain Center in Jacksonville,Florida in 2013 and 2014,prior to hisalleged onsetdate. On M arch 4,2013,M r. Brown received a thirty-day supply ofprescription medication forback pain.(Tr.312). Dr. Kenneth Powellnoted thatplaintiff's pastm edicalhistory included a herniated disc,and thathe hadundergonealumbarlaminectomyatL4-L5andalowerlumbarfusion. (Tr.311). Although plaintiffcontinued to complain of pain at subsequent monthly appointm ents,exam ination notes indicate that he was Ssdoing wel1,''that the prescribed m edications helped (Cim prove pain and function,''andthatplaintiffwastcstableoncun-entmedications.'' (Tr.297,302,303,305,308). OnAugust19,2013,Mr.BrownundelwentalumbarfacetnerveblockinjectionatCoastal Spine & Pain Center. X-rays of the lum bosacral spine w ere obtained prior to the procedure, whichrevealed Stdegenerativejointdiseasewithno appreciablesubluxationsorfractures.'' (Tr. 295). Although M r.Brown EEtolerated the injectionswellwithoutany complications orside effectsr''hecomplainedofincreased back pain inOctoberandNovember2013. (Tr.285,289, 295). Dr.Powellultimately prescribed a fentanylpatch,which plaintifffound to be Eçvery helpful''incontrollinghispain. (Tr.285). InFebruaryof2014,Dr.Powellnotedthatplaintiff hadEçremainedcompliantwithhismedications''andreportedGiexcellentpaincontrol.'' (Tr.272). Dr.PowellalsonotedthatMr.BrownwouldbestartingadifferentjobinVirginiathefollowing week,and thathewould forward hisexamination notesto Mr.Brown'snew physician. (Tr. 272-73). On M ay 14,2014,M r.Brow n presented to A bility PhysicalM edicine and Rehabilitation, lnc.in Blacksburg,Virginia,where he w as seen by Dr.Richard W ilson. Plaintiff advised Dr. W ilson thathe was GGcurrently unemployed (and)considering application for socialsecurity disability,''butthathealsohopedtoSspossiblygetl)back intoyouth coaching.'' (Tr.317). Dr. W ilson noted thatplaintiffdem onstrated çtsom e pain behaviors''during the appointm entbutdid Ssnothaveafullhistrionicdisabilitypresentation.'' (Tr.317). 0nphysicalexamination,plaintiff com plained ofleg and back pain,his retlex atthe rightA chillesw as absent,and his straightleg raisingtestwasçsgenerally positiveon theright''and dsequivocalon theleft'' (Tr.317). Dr. Brown noted thatthe examination wasotherwise (çpretty normal.'' (Tr.317). Heprescribed hydrocodoneandtizanadineforpain,andrecommendedanCsincreaseofexercise.'' (Tr.318). On January 4,2016,M r.Brow n soughttreatmentfrom Dr.Anthony Dragovich at Blue Ridge Pain M anagem entSpecialistsin Salem ,Virginia. Plaintiffprim arily complained ofpain in hislowerbackandrightleg. (Tr.320). Hereportedthatthepainwasaggravatedbyactivity,but thathewas(sabletopèrform cooking,cleaning,andpersonalhygiene''activities. (Tr.320). An exam ination of plaintiff's lum bosacral spine revealed decreased range of m otion and som e tenderness. (Tr.322). However,the straight leg raising testwas negative bilaterally and plaintiff exhibited norm al paraspinal muscle strength and increased tone. Likew ise,plaintiff displayed norm alrange ofm otion in hisupperand lowerextrem itiesw ith no edem a,tendernessto palpation,orpainonmotion. (Tr.322-23). Althoughplaintiffsgaitwas(tantalgic,''hew asable to stand without diffkulty. (Tr. 323). D r. Dragovich diagnosed plaintiff w ith lum bar degenerative disc disease, lum bar postlam inectomy syndrom e, lum bar spondylosis, and sacroiliitis. (Tr.323). HeperformedarightsacroiliacjointinjectionthatprovidedSssomepain relief.'' (Tr.323). Mr.BrownunderwentasecondinjectiononJanuary22,2016. (Tr.325). M r.Brow n returned to Dr.D ragovich forafollow -up appointm enton February 25,2016. Atthattime,plaintiffreportedthattheinjectionstçwerenothelpful,''thathewasççstillmiserable,'' andthatthepain wasSsgreatly affecting hisability to do basic activities.'' (Tr.330-31). Dr. Dragovich perform ed a physicalexam ination thatyielded Gndings consistentw ith the previous examinations. (Tr.332). Heprescribedhydrocodone-acetaminophenandcyclobenzaprine,and instructedplaintifftoretul' ninonemonth. (Tr.332-33). Subsequent progress notes from M arch,April,M ay,and July of 2016 indicate thatthe addition ofhydrocodone-acetaminophine (Norco)2 proved to be tthelpful''and tswithoutside ./.. 2 , effects.'' (Tr.334-45,338-39,342-43,346-47). Although plaintiff continued to exhibit reduced range of motion in his lumbosacral spine, his musculoskeletal exam inations were dtherwisenormal. (Tr.336,340,344,348). Duringafollow-upexaminationonSeptember16, 2016,plaintiffreported thathisprescription forN orco w asnotworking asw ellas itoncedid,and he inquired about adding a fentanylpatch. (Tr.354). Dr.Dragovich SGslightly''adjusted plaintiffs existing prescription,butdeclined to orderafentanylpatch since they w ere tçm anaging hispainfairlywell''withNorco. (Tr.354). Attheadministrativehearing conducted thefollowing month,M r.Brown testifedthathe isin pain (624 hoursa day,''and thatthe pain ûlcontinuously interruptshissleep''and causeshim to requireassistancedswashing (hisllowerextremities.'' (Tr.32-33). M r.Brownfurthertestifed tàathe isonly abletocook simplemealsapproximatelytwiceaweek. (Tr.34-35). Plaintiff estim ated thathe can stand approxim ately fifteen ortwenty m inutes before he needs to sit and stretch,andthathecansitforapproximatqlytenminutesbeforeheneedstoreadjusthimself. (Tr. 36). Plaintiffalsotestifiedthathecan only walk approximately fifty yardsbeforeheneedsto stop,andthatheisunabletobendoverduetoseverepain. (Tr.38). Mr.Brownfurthertestified thathe is (çbedridden''from pain approxim ately three daysperw eek and thathe isunableto assist withhouseholdchores. (Tr.39-40). A fter considering all of the evidence of record, the Law Judge determ ined that M r. Brow n's physicalproblem sare notso severe as to preventperform ance of lighter form s ofw ork 2Norco isthebrandnameforthecombinationprescription drug. activity. ln m aking this determ ination,the Law Judge found thatM r.Brown's allegations of disabling physical lim itations are not entirely consistent w ith the m edical evidence and other evidence in the record,including plaintiff'sown statem ents to m edicalcareproviders. The Law Judgenoted thatthe clinicalevaluationsdiscussed above includeiirelatively benign objective findings''and do notreflecttsthetypesofm edicaltreatm entonew ould expectforatotally disabled individual.'' (Tr.17). The Law Judge furtheremphasized thatthe treatmentplaintiffhas received has been conservative in nam re and generally successfulin controlling his sym ptom s. (Tr.15-16). TheLaw Judge also assigned signiGcantweightto theopinionsofDr.Jack Hutcheson and D r. Robert M cGuffin, w ho review ed the record at the request of the state agency. Both physiciansopined thatplaintiffiscapable ofm eeting the lifting requirem entsforlightw ork and thathecansit,stand,and/orwalkforapproximatelysixhoursinaneight-hourworkday. (Tr.73, 90-91). Bothphysiciansalsofoundthatplaintiffhasoccasionalposturallimitationsandthathe shouldavoidconcentratedexposuretohazards. (Tr.73-74,91-92). TheLaw Judgefoundthat the opinions ofthe state agency physicians w ere Gtsupported by the m edicalevidence ofrecord.'' (Tr.17). On appealto thiscourt,M r.Brow n,through counsel,m akes two argum ents in supportof hismotionforsummaryjudgment. First,M r.BrownarguesthattheLaw Judgefailedtoconduct a properfunction-by-function analysis in assessing hisresidualfunctionalcapacity. In particular, M r.Brown contendsthatthe Law Judge failed to m ake sufficientfindingsregarding his alleged Gtinability to m aintain a static work posture or his need to lie down as needed during the day.'' P1.'sBr.17,Dkt.No.16. Upon review of the record and applicable caselaw ,the courtfinds the plaintiffs Grst argum ent unpersuasive. A lthough guidelines from the SocialSecurity A dm inistration instruct the Law Judge to take a çffunction-by-f-unction''approach to determ ining a claim ant's residual functionalcapacity,SSR 96-8p,1996 SSR LEXIS 5,the United States CourtofA ppeals for the Fourth Circuithas(Grejected aperserulerequiringremandwhentheALJdoesnotperform an explicitfunction-by-function analysis.'' Mascio v.Colvin,780F.3d 632,635 (4th Cir.2015). lnstead,theCourtagreedwiththeSecondCircuitthat$($Erlemandmaybeappropriate...wherean ALJ fails to assess a claim ant's capacity to perform relevant functions, despite contradictory evidence in the record,or w here other inadequacies in the ALJ'S analysis frustrate m eaningful review.''' Id.(quotingCichockiv.Astrue,729F.3d 172,177(2dCir.2013:. The courtdoesnotfind this to be such a case. Itis clearfrom the Law Judge'sdecision thathe considered a1lofM r.Brown'sclaimed limitations,including those described during the adm inistrative hearing and sum m arized in a post-hearing brief,butfound that such lim itations wereinconsistentwith the objectivemedicalfindings,the conservativenatureofthetreatment provided,andtheplaintiffsown statementstotreatingphysicians. (Tr.15-17). Accordingly, the courtbelievesthattheLaw Judge'streatm entofM r.Brown'sclaimed lim itationsisconsistent withtheprotocolestablishedinM ascioandMonroev.Colvin,826F.3d 176(4thCir.2016),and thatsubstantialevidence supportstheLaw Judge'sevaluation ofM r.Brown'sresidualfunctional capacity. Second,relying on the Fourth Circuit'sdecision in Brow n v.Com m issioner,873 F.3d 251 (4thCir.2017),plaintiffcontendsthattheLaw Judge'sassessmentofhistestimonyandsubjective allegations is not supported by substantial evidence. A lthough M r. Brow n testiled at the adm inistrative hearing that he experiences totally disabling pain.and discom fort,the Law Judge found thatthe plaintiff sstatem entsregarding the intensity and lim iting effects ofhis sym ptom s w erenotentirely consistentw ith the m edicalevidenceand otherevidencein therecord. TheLaw Judge provided specifk reasons for his decision to not fully credit the plaintiff's statem ents regarding the severity ofhis symptom s. TheLaw Judge observed that,contrary to his testim ony atthe adm inistrative hearing,M r.Brown reported to D r.D ragovich thathe iscapable ofcooking, cleaning,and caring forhispersonalhygiene despite hismusculoskeletalimpairments. (Tr. 15-16). The Law Judge also noted thatMr.Brown'sobjective medicalfindingshave been relatively benign, that more recent exam ination notes reveal no worsening sym ptom s or m usculoskeletaldisease progression,and thatplaintiff s symptom s ofpain and discom forthave beenconservativelytreatedwithprescribed medications. (Tr.15-17). Indeed,plaintiffsmost recenttreatm entnotes indicate thatD r.Dragovich declined to order a fentanylpatch because he believed thatplaintiff's pain w as effectively m anaged w ith a com bination of hydrocodone and acetaminophen. (Tr.354). Upon review ofthe record,the courtis unable to discern any error in the Law Judge's credibility sndings. Unlike Brown,the Law Judge considered plaintiffs m edicalhistory along w ith his ow n allegations regarding the sym ptom s ofhisphysicalimpairments. The courtagrees that plaintiffs allegations of totally disabling sym ptom s are som ew hat inconsistent w ith the complaintsdocumented in thetreatmentrecords,theobjectiveGndingsonexamination,andthe relatively conservative treatm entm easuresprovided. Thus,the courtis satisfied thatsubstantial evidence supportsthe Law Judge'sdecision notto fully creditM r.Brown'stestim ony. In afsrm ing the Com m issioner'sflnaldecision,the courtdoesnotsuggestthatM r.Brown isfree ofa1lpain and discom fort. Indeed,the m edicalrecord confrm sthatplaintiffsuffersfrom musculoskeletalimpairmentsthatcan beexpectedtoresultin subjectivelimitations. However, the medicalrecord simply doesnotinclude clinicalfindingsorobjectivetestresultsthatare consistentwith totally disabling sym ptom atology. Itm ustbe recognized thattheinabilityto w ork withoutany subjective complaintsdoesnotofitselfrenderaclaimantdisabled. SeeCraiz,76 F.3d at592. ltappearsto the courtthatthe Law Judge considered a1lofthe m edicalevidence,as wellasa1lofthes'ubjeo ve factorsxasonably suppoled by therecord,in adjudicating Mr. Brown'sclslmRforbenests. Thus,thecourtconcludesthatallfacetsoftheCommlssioner'sfmal decision cesupportedby subse tlalevidence. Asageneralrule,theresolution ofcov ictsintheevidenceisam atterwilblntheprovince ofthe Commlssioner,even ifthe courtm ightresolve the coM icts dferently. Richardson v. Perales.s'uprm Oppenheim v.Finch.495F.2d396(4th Cir.1974). Forthereasonsstated,the courtfmdstlkeCommissioner'sDsolutionofthem e entcoM ictaintherecordinthlscasetobç s'upported by substantialevidence. Accore gly,theGnnldeclsion oftheCommlsslonermmstbe sm rmed. Lawsv-Celebren .supra TheClerkisdirededtosendcee ledcoplesofthlqmemorand= opiniontoa11counselof record. DATED:TIUS<P dayofoctober,2n18. SenlorUnitedStatesDisd ctJudge 10
]]>
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.
