Kidd; Jr v. Berryhill, No. 7:2018cv00007 - Document 15 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 8/29/2018. (ck)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK' S OFFICE U.S.DIST . COUR7 ATROANO KE,VA FILED At: J(!2gjg IN THE U NITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT FOR THE W ESTERN D ISTRICT O F VIRGINIA ROA N OKE DIV ISION JU BK c. Ls.y RU SSELL EARL K ID D,. TR., Plaintiff, CivilAction N o.7:18CV 00007 M EM O R AND UM O PIN ION N AN CY A.BERRYHILL,Acting Com m issionerofSocialSecurity, By:H on.G len E.Conrad SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge D efendant. PlaintiffhasGledthisaçtionchallengingtheGnaldecision oftheComm issionerofSocial Security denying plaintiff'sclaim foraperiod ofdisability and disability insurance benefitsunder theSocialSecurityAct,asamended,42 U.S.C.jj416(i)and423. Jurisdictionofthiscourtis establishedpursuantto42U.S.C.j405(g). Thiscourt'sreview islimitedtoadeterminationasto whether there is substantial evidence to support the Com m issioner's conclusion thatplaintiff failed to m eet the requirem ents for entitlem ent to benefits under the A ct. lf such substantial evidence exists,the finaldecision ofthe Com m issioner m ustbe affnned. Law sv.Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640 (4th Cir.1966). .stated briefly,substantialevidence hasbeen detined assuch relevantevidence,considering the record as a whole,as m ight be found adequate to supporta conclusionbyareasonablemind. Richardsonv.Perales,402U.S.389,401(1971). The plaintiff, Russell Earl K idd, Jr., was born on January 14, 1964. H e evenm ally Kidd; Jr v. Berryhill completedhishighschooleducation and oneyearofcollegecourses. (Tr.204). Mr.Kiddhas Doc. 15 beenemployedinthepastasadistrictmanagerforvariousrestaurantchains. (Tr.40,204,214). HelastworkedonaregularandsustainedbasisinFebruaryof2012. (Tr.213,255). 0nAugust 19,2013,M r,Kidd Gled an application foraperiod ofdisability and disability insurance benefits. Dockets.Justia.com In filing his currentclaim ,M r.Kidd alleged thathe becam e disabled for allform s ofsubstantial gainfulemploymenton Vebnlary 1,2012,dueto back problems,muscle/nerve damage,arthritis, and chronicpain. (Tr.203). Mr.Kidd now maintainsthathe hasremained disabled to the presenttim e. The record revealsthatM r.Kidd m etthe insured sGtus requirementsofthe Actat allrelevanttimescoveredbythefinaldecisionoftheCommissioner. Seeeenerallv42U.S.C.jj 416(i)and423(a). M r.K idd's application was denied upon initialconsideration and reconsideration. H e thenrequestedandreceived aJ-qnovohearingandreview beforeanAdministrativeLaw Judge. ln an opinion dated February 21,2017,theLaw Judge also determ ined,afterapplying thefve-step sequentialevaluation process,thatMr.Kidd isnotdisabled.* See20C.F.R.j404.1520. The Law Judge found thatM r.K idd suffersfrom asevere im pairm entin the form ofdegenerative disc disease,butthatsuch impairm entdoes notm eetorequalthe requirem ents ofa listed impairm ent. Tr.19-20). TheLaw JudgethenassessedMr.Kidd'sresidualfunctionalcapacityasfollows: A fter careful consideration of the entire record,the undersigned Gnds that the claim ant has the residual functional capacity to perform lightworkasdeGned in20C.F.R.(j)404.15674b)except the claim ant can frequently crouch, kneel, and balance but only occasionally craw l,stoop,and clim b ram ps,stairs,ladders,ropes, and scaffolds. The claim ant should avoid a1l w ork around vibrations and hazards,such as open m achinery and unprotected heights. (Tr.20). Given such a residualfunctionalcapacity,and afterconsidering testimony from a vocationalexpert,theLaw Judgedeterm ined thatM r.K idd retainssuffk ientfunctionalcapacityto remrntohispastrelevantworkasadistrictmanager. (Tr.23). Inthealternative,theLaw Judge * TheprocessrequirestheLaw Judgeto consider,in sequence,whetheraclaimant:(1)isengaged in substantialgainfulactivity;(2)hasasevereimpairment;(3)hasanimpairmentthatmeetsorequalstherequirements ofalistedimpairment;(4)canretul. ntohispastrelevantwork;and(5)ifnot,whetherhecanperlbrm otherworkinthe nationaleconomy. 20 C.F.R.j404.1520. Ifa decision can be reached atany step in the sequentialevaluation process,furtherevaluation isunnecessary. Id. 2 found thatifeven ifM r.K idd isdisabled forpastrelevantwork,he retainsthe capacity to perform otherw ork roles existing in signitk antnum berin the nationaleconom y. A ccordingly,the Law Judge concluded thatM r.K idd isnotdisabled,and thathe isnotentitled to aperiod ofdisability or disability insurancebenetis. See20 C.F.R.j 404.1520(9-(g). TheLaw Judge'sopinionwas adoptedasthefinaldecisionoftheComm issionerbytheSocialSecurityAdministration'sAppeals Council. Having exhausted a1lavailable adm inistrative rem edies,M r.K idd has now appealed to thiscourt. W hile plaintiff m ay be disabled for certain form s of employment, the crucial factual detenuination is w hether plaintiff is disabled for allfonus of substantialgainful em ploym ent. See42U.S.C.j423(d)(2). Therearefourelementsofproofwhichmustbeconsideredinmaking suchananalysis. Theseelementsaresummarizedasfollows:(1)objectivemedicaliactsand clinicalGndings;(2)theopinionsandconclusionsQftreatingphysicians;(3)subjectiveevidence ofphysicalmanifestationsofimpairments,asdescribedthrough aclaimant'stestimony;and (4) the claim ant's education,vocationalhistory,residualskills,and age. Vitek v.Finch,438 F.2d 1157,1159-60(4thCir.1971);Undee oodv.Ribicoff,29lF.2d850,851(4thCir.1962). A fter a review of the record in this case,the court is constrained to conclude that the Comm issioner's finaldecision issupported by substantialevidence. The record revealsthatM r. K idd presçnted to Cariliop Clinic's ColonialAvenue Fam ily Practice in Septem ber of2011 with com plaints of chronic back pain. M r.K idd related the pain to a com pression fracm re thathe suffered as a resultofa m otorvehicle accidentin 2002,and he reported thatthe pain had been manageableuntiltwoweekspriortotheappointment. (Tr.318). Onphysicalexamination,M r. K idd displayed tendem essin the area ofthe low erscapula,w hich w asslightly w orse on the right side. (Tr.320). Theexaminingphysician,Dr.W illiam W hitney,assessedplaintiffwith back pain,athoraciccompressionfracture,anddegenerativejointdiseaseofthethoracicspine. (Tr. 320). HeadministeredaDepo-M edrolinjectionandprescribedPercocetforpain. (Tr.320-21). ln N ovem ber of 2011, M r. K idd sought treatm ent from D r. Curtis B akhit, a pain m anagem entspecialistw ho had previousl' y seen plaintiffin 2002. D r.Balchitnoted thatplaintiff has $ça history of-1-7 vertebralbody fracm re,''and thathisthoracic pain had previously responded wellto injection therapy. (Tr.278). An examination ofplaintiff'sthoracic spine revealed paravertebraltendernessinthem id-thoracicregion. Plaintiffdidnothaveanym idlinetenderness and hisrange ofmotion wasadequate,butheexhibited pain upon extension. (Tr.279). Dr. Balchitperformed a nel' ve block injection at1-6-7 and T7-8,and provided a prescription for Percocet. (Tr.279). M r. K idd returned to Dr. Bakhit on Decem ber 12, 2011 and reported that he had experiencedaçEnoticeablereduction ofhispain aftertheJastinjection''andwasGçdoing better.'' (Tr.281). Dr.Bakhitadministeredanothernerveblockinjectionandinstructedplaintifftoreturn forapossiblerepeatinjectionintwomonths,ifnecessary. (Tr.281-83). Follow-upnotesfrom Dr.BakhitindicatethatM r.Kiddreturnedfornerveblockinjections approxim ately every two to three m onths in 2012 and the firsthalfof2013. During thephysical exam inations, M r.K idd displayed paravertebraltendem ess and occasionally reduced range of m otion upon extension,but his deep tendon reflexes w ere norm aland his sensation w as intact bilaterallyintheupperextremities. (Tr.284,287,290,293,296,301,341-42).'Dr.Bakhitnoted on m ultiple occasions that plaintiff had experienced a dssignificant'' or GGgreater than 50% '' reduction of his symptoms following the previous injections,and thatthe prescri bed pain x medicationhadproventobehelpful. (Tr.284,287,290,293,296,301). 4 In November of 2013,after going without injection therapy for severalmonths for Gnancialreasons,Mr.Kidd reported thathissymptomshad escalated. (Tr.343). Dr.Balchit administered anerveblock injection atlevelsT7-9,T9-10,and T10-11. Healso completed a residualfunctionalcapacity questionnaire,on w hich he opined thatplaintiff can occasionally lift no m orethan ten pounds,sitforapproxim ately threehoursin an eight-hourw orkday,stand orwalk forapproximatelytwphoursinaneight-hourworkday,andengageinonly limitedreaching. (Tr. 310-11). Dr.Bakhitalsoopinedthatplaintiffwouldneedtotakeoneortwounscheduledbreaks during an eight-hour workday,and thathe w ould need to be absent from w ork m ore than four timesamonthasaresultofhisphy'sicalimpainnent. (Tr.310-11). . 4 M r.Kiddreturned to Dr.Bakhitforanothernerveblock injection in February of2014, which reportedlyprovideda$$50% reduction ofhissymptomsfortwomonths.'' (Tr.346,351). Afterthepaindsjàrtedtograduallyreturn,''plaintiffreceivedanothernerveblockinjectiononM ay 19,2014. (Tr.351). Examination notes from Dr.Bakhitrevealthatplaintiff continued to receive injectiontherapy evel' y twoorthreemonths,andthathereported experiencingpositive resultsfrom thecourseoftreatment. (Tr.354,377,382,387,392,397,402,412,415). TherecordindicatesthatM r.KiddreceivedhislastnerveblockinjectiononDecember18, 2015. (Tr.377). 0n May 12,2016,plaintiffadvisedDr.Bakhitthathewas(Cdoingfairlywell with(the)presentregimenofmedications''andthathewantedtoEtholdoff'on injectionsforthe timebeing. (Tr.369). Likewise,on July 14,2016,plaintiffreported thathisEGmidback pain continuegdltobefairly wellcontrolled''andthathewantedto GGholdoffonproceduresforright now.'' (Tr.364). Thesamewasjrueinthefallof2016. Dr.BalchitnotedthatMr.Kidd'spain w asGtadequately addressedw iththeuseofPercocetand lidocaine''and thatplaintiffdenied having anysideeffectsfrom themedication. (Tr.359,434). On Septem ber 12,2016,Dr.Bakhitcompleted anotherphysicalassessm entofplaintiffs ability to perform work-related tasks. D r.Bakhitopined thatplaintiff can never liftas much as ten pounds,thathe can sitforatotaloftwo hoursin an eight-hourw orkday,and thathe can stand orwalk foratouloftwohoursiflaneight-hourworkday. (Tr.431). Dr.Bakhitfurtheropined thatplaintiffwouldneedtotakeunscheduledbreakseveryffteen minutesandthathisimpairment wouldlikelycausehim tobeabsentfrom workmorethanfourtimesamonth. (Tr.431-32). A t the adm inistrative hearing held on N ovem ber 29, 2016, M r.K idd testifed that he stoppedworkingduetochronicpainandthatthepainhadprogressivelyworsened. (Tr.41-42). Plaintiffestim ated thathe can w alk ablock on agood day before hisback beginsto spasm andthat hecancomfortablyliftnomorethantivepounds. (Tr.45-46). Mr.Kiddfurthertestifedthathe (trarely leavelsqthehouse''otherthan to go to the grocery store orthe doctor. (Tr.47,58). Plaintiffalso testised,however,thathe ow nsa cabin an hourand a halfaway thatheoccasionally visits,and that he had driven to M yrtle Beach, South Carolina to visit his girlfriend on one occasionduringthepreviousyear. (Tr.54-56). W hen M r.K idd com pletedtheadultfunction reportin N ovemberof2013,he indicated that he iscapableofperform ing lighthousecleaning and preparing m eals,thathetakeàcareofhispets, andthathegoesoutsideonadailybasis. (Tr.221-24). Plaintiffalsoreportedthathegoestothe storeonaweeklybasisandthatheisabletodriveandgooutalone. (Tr.224). A fterconsidering a1lofthe evidence ofrecord,the Law Judge determ ined thatM r.K idd's physicalproblem sare notso severe asto preventperform ance of lighterform s of work activity. In m aking this determ ination, the Law Judge found that M r.K idd's allegations of disabling physicallim itationsarenotentirely consistentw ith the m edicalevidence and otherevidence in the record,including plaintiffsown statem entsregarding hisdaily activitiesand histripsoutoftow n. 6 (Tr.23). TheLaw JudgefurtheremphasizedthatMr.Kiddç'hasnotgenerallyreceivedthetypeof medicaltreatmentonewouldexpectforatotally disabledindividual,''andthatthetreatmenthehas received hasbeen routine and/orconservative in nam re and generally successfulin controlling his symptoms. (Tr.23). TheLaw Judge also declined to acceptD r.Balchit'sopinionsregarding plaintiffsability to work. The Law Judgeem phasized thatthe lim itationsnoted by D r.Bakhitw ere inconsistentw ith the m edicalevidence as a w hole, including the physicaltindings docum ented in Dr.Bakhit's treatmentnotes. (Tr.22). The Law Judge observed thatwhile plaintiffdisplayed G'bilateral paravertebraltendernesswith adim inished range ofm otion and pain on extension and flexion,''his i'sensorimotorfunction wasintact''GGtherewasnosciatictension,''andtherewasGtno objective indication ofweakness orgaitabnormality.'' (Tr.22). The Law Judge also noted thatDr. Bakhit's m ore recentexam ination notes indicate thatplaintiff s pain was adequately controlled withhismedicinalregimenofPercocetandlidocainepatches. (Tr.23). TheLaw Judgefurther observedthatplaintiffhadnotfounditnecessarytoundergoinjectiontherapyinoverayear,and thatthere w asno indication thathe required surgery orothermore aggressive form s oftreatm ent forhismusculoskeletalimpairment. (Tr.22). The Law Judgeultim ately assigned greaterw eightto the opinionsofD r.Luc Vinh and Dr. Gene Godw in,w ho reviewed the record at the request of the state agency. Both physicians opined thatplaintiffiscapable of m eeting the lifting requirem entsforlightw ork and thathe can sit,stand,and/orwalkforapproximatelysixhoursinaneight-hourworkday. (Tr.76-78,87-89). D r.Godw in also found thatplaintiffhas occasionalposturallim itations and thathe should avoid concentratedexposuretovibrationsorhazards. (Tr.88-89). Dr.GodwinfurtheropinedthatDr. Bakhit'sassessm entofplaintim swork-related lim itationsw as inconsistentw ith thetotality ofthe evidenceofrecord. (Tr.89). On appealto this court,M r.Kidd,through counsel,argues thatthe Law Judge erred in failing to give significantw eightto Dr.Bakhit's opinions. H aving reviewed the record in its entirety, however, the court concludes that substantial evidence supports the Law Judge's decision. A lthough theopinionsofatreating sourceare generally entitled to greaterweightunder theadministrativeregulationsapplicabletoplaintiffsclaims,see20C.F.R.j404.1527(c)(2),the courtbelievesthat,in the instantcase,the Law Judgeproperly determ ined to give m orew eightto otherm edicalevidence,including the reports from D r.V inh and D r.Godw in. The Law Judge reasonably concluded that the state agency physicians' assessm ent of M r. Kidd's residual functionalcapacity ism ore consistentw ith the clinicalGndings,the course oftreatm entprovided, and the factthat conservative treatm entm easures have been generally successfulin controlling plaintiffs sym ptom s. ln short,the courtbelieves thatthe Law Judge's decision to discountthe opinionsoffered by Dr.Bakhit,and to rely instead on the opinionsofthe state agency physicians, isw ellsupported by therecord.' See. e. g.,Sharpv.Colvin.660F.App'x251,259(4thCir.2016) (affirmingtheLaw Judge'sdeterminationthattheplaintiffsmedicaltreatment,which included injections,pain medication,and physicaltherapy,Sdwas conservative,and thathercourse of treatmentsupportedaconclusionthatshelasabletomaintainaroutineworkschedule'');Bishop v.Comm'rofSoc.Sec.,583F.App'x65,66(4thCir.2014)(affirmingtheLaw Judge'sdecision to rejectthe opinion ofa treating physician thatwasTEinconsistentwith the mild to moderate diagnosticfndings''and(<theconservativenatureof(théplaintiff's)treatmenf'). In affrm ing the Com m issioner'sfinaldecision,thecourtdoesnotsuggestthatM r.Kidd is free ofa1lpain and discom fort. Indeed,the m edicalevidence confirm sthatplaintiffsuffersfrom 8 ' amusculoskeletalimpnlrmenttlmtçaqbeexpect#dtoresultinsubjeçivellmltadons. However, i '' . '. . * t .. . ' î ..l . ... @ %. 1 ' e. therecordsimplydoesnothcludeclhlicalGndlngsorobjecti vetestresultstbntareconsistentw1t11 . totally disabling symptmntology,andinntead indicatesthstplnlntc ssymptomqv esubj. ed.to reasonable medical conkol tbrough esyenially conservaove treau entm easur:s. lt.. m ust be ' recognlmd. . thst-t.he ... l ns . ..* bfl'. l,tœy ;t o.wo.rk.wi.tào . u .t anysubjecEvecomplnlntsdoesnotofitselfrendera . clnlmnnt disabled.,See,Crah.76 E.3d at592. It appers to ' . i e cbllrtthat.the Law Judge . . . i ( ' .; 'l . . ' a . 1 .:.. . . ': . .. ' '.. * * * g . .- r . conslderedallofthemez 'lcalevidence,aswellasallofthesublectivefactdrsreasonablysupported bytherecord,inadjudicadngMr.Kidd'sclnlm forbenefts. Thus,tllecourtconcludesthntall ' facetsoftheCommlssioner'sSnsldecision aresupporte by substlmialeddence. .. . ' , . t ;1 . l . 1 - . . . .. , :,: ' T . . 4. ' .. . 'q ' '.:* .. Asagenerslnxle,theresolutlon ofconAlctqintheevldenceisamatterwithlntheprovince ' zJ. ofthe Commlssioner,even ifthe cone mightresolve the confllctsdx erently. Rlchrdson v. - :. ! . * ' t Z' p. '* Perales.suprm Oppenheim v.Finch.495F.2d396 (4th Cir.1974). Forthereasonsstated,the '. q z .: . '. .. ., l:.. . . ' . . .* ' . * . ' * . , . . . ' cond lndstheCommlssloner'sresolution ofthepertlnentconilctsin',t herecordin tlzlscaseto be X q ' ' . supportedby subsfnntialevidence. Accordlngly,theGnsldecision o' ftheCommlsslonermlle be ' nm nned. Lawsv.Ce lebrezze.stipraz l t .. . .... . ... . . .'... .. : . . . .; .$ TheClerkk' dlmectedtosendcertl 'sedcopiesoftlllsmemorandllm oplniontoa11colmnelof record. oATso:' nunzp dayofAusust,2018. SenlorUnlted StatesDisd ctJudge 9
]]>
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.
