Church, Jr. v. Berryhill, No. 7:2018cv00088 - Document 17 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 5/21/2019. (ck)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK' S OFFICE U.S.DISE Cotlr AT O ANOKE,VA Fj LED MAt 2 12212 IN TilE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR Tlv W ESTERN DISTRICT 0F V IR GW IA ROANOKE DIVISION JUL DUDLEM CLERK BY; ' D STEPH EN L.CHURCH,JR ., Plaintiff, CivilAction N o.7:18CV 00088 M EM O RA NDU M OPINIO N N AN CY A .BERRYHILL,A cting Com m issionerofSocialSecurity, By:H on.Glen E.Conrad SeniorU nited StatesD istrictJudge D efendant. Plaintiffhas filed this action challenging the finaldeçision ofthe Com m issionerofSocial Security depying plaintiff sclaim foraperiod ofdisability and disability insurance benefitsunder theSocialSecurity Act,asamended,42U.S.C.jj416(i)and 423. Jurisdiction ofthiscourtis establishedpursuantto42U.S.C.j405(g). Thiscourt'sreview islimitedtoadeterminationasto w hether there is substantial evidence to supportthe Com m issioner's conclusion thatxplaintiff failed to m eet the requirem ents for entitlement to benefts under the A ct. If such substantial evidinceexists,theGnaldecision ofthe Commissionermustbe affirm ed. Lawsv.Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640 (4th Cir.1966). Stated brietly,substantialevidence hasbeen defned as such relevantevidence,considering the record as a w hole,as m ight be found adequate to supporta conclusionbyareasonablemind. Y chardsonv.Perales,402U.S.389,401(1971). The plaintiff,Stephen L.Church,Jr.,w gs born on D ecem ber 13, 1972. H e eventually Church, Jr. v. Berryhill graduated from high school; (Tr.33). Mr.Church haspreviously worked asa garage door Doc. 17 installerandpaintingsupervisor. (Tr.44-45). Helastworkedonaregularandsustainedbasisin 2012. (Tr.45,171). OnApril29,2014,Mr.ChurchGledanapplicationforaperiodofdisability and disability insurance benefks. In filing hiscurrentclaim ,M r.Church alleged thathe becam e Dockets.Justia.com disabledforallfol'msofsubstantialgainfulemploymenton June1,2012,duetodegenerativedisc disease, lum bar facet syndrom e, lum bar spondylosis, fibrom yalgia, polyarthralgia,depression, anxiety,diabetes,andgout. (Tr.177). Mr.Churchnow maintainsthathehasremaineddisabled to thepresenttim e. Therecord revealsthatM r.Church m etthe insured statusrequirem entsofthe Actatal1relevanttimescovered by the fnaldecision ofthe Comm issioner. See aenerallv 42 U.S.C.jj416(i)and423(a). M r.Church's application w as denied upon initialconsideration and reconsideration. H e thenrequestedandreceived aéqnovohearingandreview beforeanAdministrativeLaw Judge. ln an opinion dated January 23,2017,the Law Judge also determ ined,afterapplying the five-step sequentialevaluationprocess,thatM r.Churchisnotdisabled.? See20C.F.R.j404.1520. Tlw Law Judgefound thatM r.Church suffersfrom severalsevere impairm ents,including degenerative disc disease,spondylosisw ith myelopathy,peripheralneuropathy,obesity,and osteoarthritis,but thatthese im pairm ents do not,eitherindividually or in com bination,m eetor m edically equalthe requirementsofalistedimpairment. (Tr.16-17). TheLaw JudgethenassessedMr.Church's residualfunctionalcapacity asfollows: After careful consideration of the entire record,the undersigned Gnds that the claim ant has the residual functional capacity to erform lightworkasdefined in 20C.F.R.(j1404.1567419 except llftand/orcan' ytwentypoundsoccasionally,tenpoundsfrequently, sitforsix hourstotalin an eight-hourday,stand forsix hourstotalln an eight-hour day,w alk for six hours totalin an eight-hour day, occasionàllyclimbrampsandstairs,neverclimbladdersg,)ropesor scaffolds, occasionally stoop and crouch, never kneel, never balance, never craw l, off task fve percent of the workday in addition to norm albreaks,and absentone day perm onth. *TheprocessrequirestheLaw Judge to consider,in sequence,whethera claimant:(1)isengaged in substantialgainfulactivity;(2)hasasevereimpairment;(3)hasanimpairmentthatmeetsorequalstherequirements ofalistedimpairment;(4)canreturntohispastrelevantwork;and(5)ifnot,whetherhecanperform otherworkinthe nationaleconomy. 20 C.F. R.j404.1520. Ifa decision can be reached atany step in the sequentialevaluation process,furtherevaluation isunnecessary. Id. 2 (Tr.18). Given such a residualfunctionalcapacity,and after considering testimony from a vocationalexperqtheLaw JudgedeterminedthatM r.Chtlrch isunabletoperform any ofhispast relevantwork. (Tr.21). However,theLaw JudgefoundthatMr.Churchretainsthecapacityto perfol'm otherwork rolesexisting in signitkantnumber in the nationaleconomy. (Tr.21). A ccordingly,the Law Judge concluded thatM r.Church isnotdisabled,and thathe isnotentitled toaperiqdofdisabilityordisabilityinsurancebenefks. See20C.F.R.j404.1520(g). TheLaw Judge's opinion w as adopted as the finaldecision of the Com m issioner by the Social Security A dm inistration'sAppealsCouncil. H aving exhausted a11available adm inistrative rem edies,M r. Church hasnow appealed to thiscourt. W hile plaintiff m ay be disabled for certain form s of employm ent,the crucial factual determination is whetherplaintiff is disabled for a11forms ofsubstantialgainfulemployment. See42U.S.C.j423(d)(2). Therearefourelementsofproofwhichmustbeconsideredinmaking such an analysis. These elementsaresummarized asfollows:(1)objectivemedicalfactsand clinicalsndings;(2)theopinionsandconclusionsoftreatingphysicians;(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);Underwoodv.Ribicoff,298F.2d850,851(4thCir.1962). A fter a review of the record in this case,the court is constrained to conclude that the Com m issioner's finaldecision is supported by substantialevidence. The record reveals thaton the alleged onsetdate ofJune 1,2012,M r.Church presented to his prim ary care physician,Dr. QuasarRaza,withcomplaintsofpaininhisbackandlowerjoints,whichwasç<worseathisplace ofwork.'' (Tf.270). M r.Churchreportedthathehadexperiencedjointpainsincebeingstruck bylighteningapproximately20yearsearlier. (Tr.270,305). Dr.Razanotedthatplaintiffwas ççm orbidly obese''butin çtno distress,''and thathisalleged pain did notradiate orresultin tingling orreducedstrengthinhislowerextremities. (Tr.270-71). Dr.Razaorderedavarietyoftests, includingserologicstudiesforuseinassessingplaintiffscomplaintsofpain. (Tr.271). M r.Church returned to Dr.Raza fora follow-up exam ination on July 20,2012. Dr.Raza notedthattheIaboratorytestsKdshowedthatgplaintifrsjrheumatoidfactorwasnegative''andthat EWNA wasnegative.'' (Tr.268). Althoughplaintiffcontinuedtocomplainofççachesandpains in variousplaces,''he was in Gtno distress''and exhibited no edema. (Tr.268). Dr.Raza prescribed Savella for possible fibrom yalgia. He also diagnosed plaintiff w ith early-onset diabetesmellitisandrecommendedthatplaintiffutilizeRaggressiveweightlossstrategies.'' (Tr. 268). M r.Church did notsee Dr.Raza again untilApril 11,2013,afterm issing or cancelling multipleappointments. By thatpoint,plaintiffsdiabeteswasç<poorly controlled.'' (Tr.265). Dr.RazaprescribedLevemir(insulin)andplacedplaintiffonacalorie-restricteddiet. W henMr. Church returned toD r.Raza two w eekslater,hisblood sugarlevelshad im proved and he appeared tobedoing'çmuchbetter-'' (Tr.265). Althoughx-raysofplaintiT sspineshowedonlyKçmild'' degenerativechanges(Tr.331),Dr.Razanoted thatplaintiffcontinuedtocomplqin ofpain and appearedtobeEçobsessedwithit-'' (Tr.263). On January 23,2014,M r.Church saw Dr.M arc Sw anson atBlueRidgePain M anagem ent Associatesforaninitialconsultation. (Tr.305). Plaintiffreportedthathehadbeenexperiencing Gm oderately severe diffuse pain in the back, feet,and handsy''w hich w orsened w ith exertion, weatherchanges,and coughing. (Tr.305). On physicalexamination,M r.Church exhibited tendenzess in the lum bosacral spine w ith m oderately lim ited range of m otion. How ever, plaintiffsm uscletonewasw ithin norm allim its,straightleg raising testsw erenegativebilaterally, 4 hisjointstability waswithin normallimits,andheambulated withoutdifficulty. Dr.Swanson diagnosed plaintiffw ith chronic pain syndrom e forw hich he prescribed Norco and recom m ended warm waterexercisesandweightloss. (Tr.308). W henplaintiffsaw Dr.Razasix dayslater, plaintiffreportedthathefeltSsmuch,muchbetter''aRerstartingthepainmedication. (Tr.257). Likewise,on February 19,2014,M r.Church'smusculoskeletalexam ination was<çunremarkable'' andDr.RazanotedthatthepainmedicationcontinuedtobeEEeffective.'' (Tr.253-54). On February 26,2014,Dr.Swanson performed a lumbar paravertebralfacetjoint . injection with tluoroscopy. (Tr.313). Plaintifftolerated the procedure well,and he was discharged in satisfactory condition. N otesfrom a follow -up visiton M ay 29,2014 indicatethat plaintifrspainwasççmuch better.'' (Tr.318). Anexamination ofplaintiffslumbosacralspine revealed sometendernessandreduced rangeofmotion. (Tr.320). However,thestraight1eg raisingtestw>snegqtivebilaterally,plaintiffsjointstabilitywaswithinnormallimits,hisgaitwas nonnal,and he wasable to stand withoutdiffculty. (Tr.320). Dr.Swanson continued to recommendwarm waterexercisesandweightloss. (Tr.321). AnMRIconductedatplaintiffs requeston June 3,2014 revealed a Gsm allrightforam inaldisc herniation''thatdid ttnotappearto affecttheexitingnerve.'' (Tr.317,351). Follow -up notesfrom Dr.Swanson indicatethatM r.Church continued to com plain ofpain in hislowerback and legsduring the second halfof2014. (Tr.353,357,361). However, m usculoskeletal exam inations rem ained unchanged from prior visits. A lthough M r. Church exhibited signs oftendem ess and reduced range ofm otion,his strength,m otorfunction,retlexes sensation,gait,and stationwerenormal,andhewasabletostandwithoutdifficulty. (Tr.355, 359,363). 5 The record indicates that M r. Church w as not treated by Dr. Swanson in 2015. N onetheless, on February 27, 2015, D r. Swanson completed a physical residual functional capacity assessm ent,in w hich he opined thatplaintiffcan occasionally liftup to twenty pounds, frequently liftup to ten pounds,stand and/or walk forapproxim ately two hoursin an eight-hour workday,and sitforapproximately six hours in an eight-hourworkday,as long ashe isable to alternatebetween sittingandstandingto relievepainand discomfort. (Tr.367). Dr.Swanson furtheropined thatM r.Church can occasionally stoop,crouch,and clim b rampsorstairs,and that hecannevercrawl,kneel,balance,orclimbladders,ropes,orscaffolds. (Tr.768). Dr.Swanson also completed a lum barspine medicalsource statem ent,in w hich heopined thatplaintiffcan w alk approxim ately two city blocks w ithoutrest or severe pain,thathe can sitfor no m ore than two hours w ithoutneeding to get up,and thathe can stand forapproxim ately thirty m inutes before needing to sitdow n orw alk around. D r.Sw anson furtheropined thatplaintiffw ould need totake two orthreebreaksperday forapproximately fm een minutes,thathewould likely be Slofftask'' forapproximately tm een percenteach day,and thathewould likely beabsentfrom work about threedayspermonth. (Tr.374-75). M ore than ten m onths later,on January 6,2016,M r.Church retum ed to Dr.Raza and reportedthathehadlostweightandfeltççverywell''overall. (Tr.545). Plaintiffhadnojointor musclepainandhisphysicalexaminationwasnormal. (Tr.545-46). Notesfrom asubsequent visit on February 9, 2016 likewise indic>te that plaintiff had experienced Gfsignificant improvement''withhisblood sugarlevelsand hadlostabouttsvepounds. (Tr.548). Plaintiff onceagaincomplainedofnojointormusclepain,andhisphysicalexaminationwasnormal. (Tr. 548-49). 6 Approxim ately five m onths later,on July 30,2016,M r.Church returned to D r.Sw anson with complaintsofEçwidespreadpain.'' (Tr.403). Dr.Swanson noted thatplaintiffhad been <<stnlggling''afterbeingtakenoffofNorco,andthathehadrecentlytestedpositiveforcocainebut deniedusingthedrugonaconsistentbasis. (Tr.403). Dr.SwansonalsonotedthatMr.Church wasscheduledtoreceiveaspinalcordstimulatorimplantforpain. (Tr.403). Plaintiffunderwentthe implantprocedure on August5,2016. H etolerated theprocedure wellandwasdischargedwithnocomplications. (Tr.431). Atthe time oftheprocedure,Mr. Churchreportedthathehadlost65poundsandwasnolongertakinginsulin. (Tr.427). Fivedayslater,M r.Church returned to Dr.Razaforafollow -up visit. D r.Raza notedthat plaintiffsdiabeteswasEçwithoutcomplication''andthathedidnotreportanyjointormusclepain. (Tr.550). Plaintifrsphysicalexamination wasunremarkable,and Dr.R.azainstructed.him to returninfourmonths. (Tr.551). At the adm inistrative hearing held on D ecem ber 8,2016,M r.Church testified that his m uscles,arm s,and back Hache allthe tim e,''and thatthe pain prevents him from sleeping m ore thanthreehourspernight (Tr.34,35). Mr.Churchalsotestifiedthathecan'tçtsitorreallystand much''andthatheisonlycomfortableinhisreclinertshalfway inclined.'' (Tr.35-36). Plaintiff estim ated that he can sit for a m axim um of fifteen or thirty m inutes before needing to sw itch positionsandthathecanonlystandforfifteenortwentyminutesatatime. (Tr.36). Mr.Church also testifed thathecan only stay focused forapproxim ately thirty m inutesbeforebeing distracted byhissymptomsandthatittakeshim approximatelytwohourstogetbackontask. (Tr.37). A fter considering all of the evidence of record, the Law Judge detennined that M r. Church'sphysicalproblem sarenotso severe asto preventperform ance ofa lim ited range oflight w ork activity. In m aking thisdeterm ination,the Law Judge found thatM r.Church'sallegations of totally disabling physical lim itations are inconsistent w ith the clinical findings and other evidence in the record. (Tr.19). The Law Judgefurtheremphasized thatplaintiffsphysical impairm ents have been treated w ith relatively conservative m easures and thatnone ofplaintiffs treating physicians have recom m ended m ore invasive surgicalprocedures for pain or obesity. (Tr.19-20). TheLaw Judgealso declined to acceptDr.Sw anson'sopinionsregarding plaintiffsability to w ork. TheLaw Judgeem phasized thatthe lim itationsnoted by Dr.Swanson w ere inconsistent w ith the m edical evidence as a w hole, including the physical sndings docum ented in Dr. Swanson'sown treatmentnotes. (Tr.20). TheLaw Judgeobserved thatthe çsonly abnonnal Gndingsw ere oftenderness and Iim ited range ofm otion,''and thatççD r.Swanson typically found theclaimantto have nonnalstrength,sensation,reflexes,andjointstability,with normalgait, ability to standwithoutdiffculty,andnormaltonewithnoatrophy.'' (Tr.20). Thus,theLaw Judgefoundthatçç(Dr.Swanson'sjtreatmentnotesdonotsupporthismedicalsourcestatement.'' (Tr.20). The Law Judge assigned som ewhatgreater w eight to the opinions ofD r.BertSpetzler, w ho review ed the record atthe requestofthe state agency. Dr.Spetzleropined thatplaintiff is capableofm eetingtheliftingrequirementsforlightworkandthathecan sit,stand,and/orwalk for approximately six hours in an eight-hourworkday. (Tr.69). Dr.Spetzler also found that plaintiffhas occasionalposmrallimitations. (Tr.69). The Law Judge determined thatDr. Spetzler's assessm ent of plaintiff's capacity to work is Eegenerally consistent w ith the record.'' (Tr.20). However,basedonevidencereceivedatthehearinglevel,theLaw Judgealsoincluded çtoff task and absence expectations'' in his residual functional capacity assessm ent, which he 8 determ ined w ould adequately accom m odateE&any distraction ordefk iency in theclaim ant'sability tofocusorconcentratebecauseofpainorsideeffectsofmedications.'' (Tr.20). On appealto this court,M r.Church,through counsel,m akestwo argum ents in supportof hismotionforsummaryjudgment. First,plaintiffarguesthattheLaw Judgeerred infailingto give significantweightto Dr.Swanson'sopinions. Having reviewed the record in itsentirety, how ever, the court concludes that substantial evidence supports the Law Judge's decision. A lthough the opinions of a treating source are generally entitled to greater weight under the administrativeregulationsapplicabletoplaintiffsclaim,see20C.F.R.j404.1527(c)(2),thecourt believesthat,in the instantcase,the Law Judge properly determ ined to give lesserweightto the opinions offered by Dr.Swanson. 'I' he Law Judge reasonably concluded that Dr. Swanson's opinions.:re unsupported by the qbjçcti ve Gndingson examination and.inconsistentwith the . course of treatm ent provided. In short, the court believes that the Law Judge's decision to discounttheopinionsoffereébyDr.Swanson,andtoprovidegreaterweighttotheopinionsofthe state agency physician,iswellsupported by the record. See.e.R.,Sharp v.Colvin,660 F.App'x 251,259 (4th Cir.2016)(affinuingtheLaw Judge'sdetermination thaitheplaintifrsmedical treatment,which included injections,pain medication,and physicaltherapy,Rwasconservative, and thathercourse oftreatm entsgpported a conclusion thatshe w as able to m aintain a routine work schedule');KevinD.v.Berrvhill.No.4:17-cv-00068,2018U.S.Dist.LEXIS 218053,at *35(W .D.Va.Dec.26,2018),reportandrecommendationadopted,2019U.S.Dist.LEXIS8506 (W .D.Va.Jan.17,2019) (finding no reversible error in the weights assigned to contlicting m edicalopinionswhere exam ination notesindicated thattheplaintiffssym ptom sresponded w ell toKrelativelyroutinetreatment''includingçEaspinalcordstimulator''). 9 In his second argum ent,M r.Church contends thatthe Law Judge's assessm ent of his testimonyandsubjectivecomplaintsisnotsupportedbysubstantialevidence. W hileM r.Church testitsed atthe adm inistrative hearing that he experiences constantpain that prevents him from sleeping and substantially lim itshisability to sitorstem d,theLaw Judge found thatthe plaintiffs Sûstatementsconcernipg theintensity,persistenceandlimitingeffectsof(his)symptomsarenot entirelyconsistentwiththemedicalevidenceandotherevidenceofrecord.'' (Tr.19). TheLaw Judge em phasized thatthe exam ination notes indicate thatthe relatively conservative treatm ent m easuresprovided by Dr.Swanson effectively m anaged plaintiffs pain and discom fortand that hewasabletostandwithoutdiffkulty. (Tr.20). TheLaw JudgealsonotedthatM r.Churchwas consistently fotm d to have normalm otorstrength and m uscletone,intactsensation,and a norm al gait. (Tr.20). Uponreview oftherecord,thecourtisunableto discern any errorintheLaw Judge's credibility findings. The courtagreesthatM r.Church's allegations oftotally .disabling . . . symptom s are disproportionate to the clinical findings and inconsistent w ith the evidence indicating that plaintiffs pain and discom fort have been effectively controlled w ith relatively conservative treatm ent m easures. Indeed, Dr. Raza's notes from the period im m ediately precedingtheadministrativehearingindicatethatareview ofsystemswastçnegativeforjointpain (andj muscle pain,''and thatplaintiff's physicalexamination was essentially normal. (Tr. 550-51). Accordingly,thecourtissatisfiedthatsubstantialevidencesupportstheLaw Judge's decision notto fully creditM r.Church'stestim ony. In>ffrmingtheCommissioner'sGnaldecision,thecourtdoesnotsuggestthatM r.Church is free ofallpain and discom fort. lndeed,the m edicalevidence confirm s thatplaintiffsuffers frop . a combination of physicalimpainnents that can be expected to result in subjective lim itations. However,therecord sim ply doesnotinclude clinicalfndingsorobjectivetestresults . 10 thatare consistentwith totally disabling symp*matology,and lnslad indicatesthatplaine s symptomsare subjectto reasonable medlcalconkolthrough relatively conservauvekeatment measmes. ItmustberecognizedthatthelnabllitytoworkwithoutanysubjecGvecomplaintsdoes notofitselfrenderaclnlm antdisabled. SeeCraig.76F.3dat592. ItappecstotheCOIM thatthe Law Judge considered al1ofthe medlcalevldence,aswellas allofthe subjective factors reasènably supportedbytherecori inadjudicatingM r.Ch= h'sclslm forbènefts. Thus,the courtconcludesthatallfacetsofthe Commlqsioner'sNnnldeckion are supportedby sube ntial evidence. 1 Asagen- lrale,theresolutlonofcoM lctsin theevidqnceisam atterwll%lntheprovince ofthe Commlssloner,éven lftlle courtmightresolve the confllctq dx erently. Richardson v. Perales.supa Oppenbelm v.Finch,495F.2d 396 (4th Cir.1974). Fortllereasonsstated,the courtfmdstheCom mlssloner'sresoluGonofthepee entcoM lctsln therecord intbiscasetobe supported by substantialevidence. Accore gly,theGnnldedsion oftheCommlssipnermus. tbe am cned. Lawsv.Celebrezze,supra. TheClerklsdlrectedto sendcero edcopiesoftbismemorandum opiniontoallcolmselof record. DATBD:w s& (A day ofM ay 2019. , SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge
]]>
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.
