Wade v. Commissioner Of Social Security, No. 7:2018cv00127 - Document 21 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 09/30/2019. (ams)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK' S OFFICE U.S.DISX O URT AT ROANOKE,VA FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TllE W ESTERN DISTRICT 0F VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION SEF S2 2212 JULAC UDLEY CLERK ? BY; C DAVID W ADE,Administrator oftheEstateofElizabeth W ade, Plaintiff, CivilAction No.7:18CV00127 M EM ORANDUM OPINION AN DREW SAU L, Com m issioner ofSocialSectlrityyl By:H on.G len E.Conrad SeniorU nited Stases D istrictJudge Defendant. Plaintiffhassled thisaction challenging the finaldecision oftheComm issionerofSocial Sectlrity denying plaintiffs deceased wife's claim for a period of disability and disability insurance benefitstmderthe SocialSecudty Act,asnmended,42 U.S.C.jj 416(i)and 423.2 Jurisdiction ofthiscourtisestablished ptlrsuantto 42 U.S.C.j405(g). Thiscourt'sreview is lim ited to a determ ination as to whether there is substantial evidence to support the Comm iqsioner's conclusion that plaintiff failed to meet the requirem ents for entitlem ent to benefitstmdertheAct. lfsuch substantialevidenceexists,thesnaldecision oftheCom missioner mustbe affirmed. Lawsv.Celebrezze,368 F.2d 640,642 (4th Cir.1966). Stated brietly, substantialevidencehasbeen definedassuch relevantevidence,consideringtherecord asawhole, asmightbe fotmd adequate to supporta conclusion by areasonablem ind. Biestek v.Berryllill, 139S.Ct.1148,1154(2019);Richardsonv.Perales,402U.S.389,401(1971). Wade v. Commissioner Of Social Security Doc. 21 1Andrew Saulisnow the CommissionerofSocialSecurity,and he isautomatically substituted asaparty pursuanttoFederalRuleofCivilProcedure25(d);seealso42 U.S.C.j405(g)(action survivesregardlessofany changeinthepersonbccupyingtheoftkeofCommissionerofSocialSecurity). 2Theoriginalclaimant,ElizabethW ade,diedsometimeaûertheflrstadministrativehearingonherclaim for disability insurr cebenetks. Thiscasewastiledby M rs.W ade'shusband,DavidW ade,astheadminiskatorofher estate. Forpurposesofconsistency andclarity,thecourtwillhereinaAerrefertoElizabeth W adeastheplaintiff. Dockets.Justia.com Elizabeth W ade wàs born on M ay 1, 1959, and evenmally completed her college education. M rs.W adeworked form any yearsin the Child SupportEnforcem entDivision ofthe Departmentof SocialServices. She lastworked on a regularand sustained basis in 2000. On April19,2010,M rs.W ade sled an application foraperiod ofdisability and disability insurance benefits. Inflinghercurrentclaim,Mrs.W adeallegedthatshebecnmedisabledfora11formsof substantialgainflllemploym enton July 11,2000,dueto avariety ofconditions,includingasthm a, fibromyalgia, back injury with herrliated discs, migraine headaches, artluitis, hepatitis C, hypersomnolence with exkeme fatigue,depression/anxiety,Charcotjointordiffuse pigmented villonodular synovitis, and foot deformities. (Tr. 279). Plaintiff alleged that she was ? pennanently disabled. TherecordrevéalsthatM rs.W ademetthe insm ed statusrequirementsof theActthroughthesecondquarterof2096,butnotthereafter. Seeaenerally42U.S.C.jj416(i) and423(a). Consequently,plaintiffisentitledto apedod ofdisability and disability insurance benefits o'n1y if she established that she becnm e disabled for al1 forms of substantial gainflll employmenton orbeforeJune 30,2006. Mrs. Wade's application'for disaàility inslzrance benefits was denied upon initial considerationandreconsideration. Shethenrequestedandreceivedaéqnovohearingandreview before an Administrative Law Judge. In an opinion dated M ay 16,2013,the Law Judge also determined thatM rs.W ade wasnotdisabled on orbefore herdate lastinsured. The Law Judge found thatM rs.W ade suffered from several severe impainnents through that date,including obesity,degenerative disc disease ofthe lum barspine,m igraines,asthm a,hypertension,hepatitis C, obstructive sleep apnea, and depression. D espite these im painnents, the Law Judge determined thatM rs.W ade retaihéd sufficientftmctionalcapacity for a lim itqd range of light exertionalactivitythatdidnotrequireperformanceofcomplextasksorskilled work. (Tr.17). Given such aresidualfllnctionalcapacity,and afterhaving considered plaintiY sage,education, and priorwork experience,theLaw JudgedeterminedthatM rs.W adewasunableto perform any Pastrelevantworktvoughthedatelastinsured. However,theLaw Judgefoundthatsheretained thecapacity to perform otherwork rolesexisting in signitk antnum berin thenationaleconomy. . '. Accordingly,theLaw Judge ultimately concluded thatM rs.W adewasnotdisabled priorto Jtme 30,2006,and thatshe wasnotentitled to a period ofdisability ordisability insurance benefits. See20C.F.R.j404.1520(g). TheLaw Judge'sopinionwasadoptedasthefinaldecision ofthe Comm issionerby the SocialSecttrity Adm inistration'sAppealsCotmcil. Having exhausted all availableadm ii strativerem edies,M rs.W adeappealed to thiscourt. By m emorandtlm opinion and orderentered July 17,2015,the courtrem anded plaintiY s caseto the Com missionerforfurtherdevelopm entand consideration. See W adev.Colvin,No. 7:14-cv-00569,2015U.S.Dist.LEXIS93223(W .D.Va.July 17,2015). Thecourtheldthatthe evidence supported ihe Law Judge's assessm ent of the opinion evidence,including the Law Judge'sdetermination to givelittleweightto a medicalsolzrcestatem entcompletedby plaintiff s treating physician,Dr.Don Brady,in 2012,six yearsafterherinstlred statusexpired. Howev'er, the courtobserved thatwhile the Law Judge fotmd thatplaintiff had m oderate difficulties in maintaining concentration,persistence,or'pace, the Law Judge did notinclude a corresponding limitation in ilisassessmeniofplaintiffsresidualfunctionalcapacity,orexplain why no such limitationwasrequireb. Accordingly,basedonseveraldecisions,includingtherecentdecisionof theUnited StatesCourtofAppealsfortheFourth Circuitin Masciov.Colvin,780F.3d 632(4th Cir.2015),the courtfound good cause to remand the case to the Commijsionerfor further developm entand consideration. Onrem and,theComm issionerassigned thecasetothesnmeAdm inistrativeLaw Judgefor asupplem entalhearinganddecision. TheLaw Judgeissued anew decision on October26,2016. In hissecond opinion,the Law Judgeonceagain determined thatM rs.W adewasnotdisabled on orbefore her date last inslzred. The Law Judge fotmd thatM n .W ade suffered from several . severe impainnentstllrough thatdAte,including obesity,degenerativediscdisease ofthe lllm bar spine,migraines,asthm a,hyperten:ion,hepatitis C,obstnzctive sleep apnea,and depression,but thatthese impairmentsdid not,eitherindividually orin com bination,m eetorm edically equalthe requirements of a listed impairm ent. The Law Judge then assessed M rs. W ade's residual ftmctionalcapacity asfollows: After careful consideration of the entire record,the tmdersigned finds that, through the date last insured, the claim ant had the residualfunctionalcapacity to perform lightwork asdefined in 20 C.F.R. 404.15671) with exceptions.3 The claimaùt could occasionally climb,balance,stoop,kneel,crouch,and crawl. She could tolerate occasional exposttre to extrem e cold,w etness, and hllm idity. The claimant could tolerate occasional exposure to excessive noise and vibrations,as wellas occasionalexpostlre to pulmonary initants such as fhm es, odors, gases, and poorly ventilated areas. W ork waslim ited to simple,tmskilled tasks,in a 1ow stressenvironm entthatallowed forregularly scheduled breaks, rçquired only occasionaldecisiqn-m nking,and wasnotproduction rate or pace work with strict production standards. She had to avoid a1l exposure to operationalcontrol of m oving machinery, tmprotected heights,and hazardousm achinery. 3Lightwork isdefinedin theregulation asfollows: L ghtwork involvesliRingno morethan20poundsatatimewith frequentliAing . i orcarryingofobjectsweighingupto10pounds. EventhoughtheweightliRed maybeverylittle,ajobisinthiscategorywhenitrequiresagooddealofwalking orstanding,orwhen itinvolvessittingm ostofthetim ewith som epushingand pulling ofarm orlegcontrols, Tobeconsideredcapableofperforming af' ullor widerangeoflilhtwork,(theclaimant)musthavetheabilitytodosubstantially al1oftheseactivlties. 20C.F.R.j404.1567($. (Tr.2044). Given such a residualfunctionalcapacity,and afterconsidering testimony from a vocationalexpert,the Law Judge determined thatM rs.W ade wastmable to perform any past relevantwork through the date lastinstlred. However,the Law Judge found thatshe possessed thecapacity to perfonn otherwork rolesexisting in significantnllmberin thenationaleconomy. A ccordingly,the Law Judge concluded thatM rs.W ade w as not disabled at any tim e from the alleged onset date through the date last instlred,and that she was not entitled to a pedod of disability ordisability insurance benetks. See 20 C.F.R.j 404.1520(g). The Law Judge's opinion was adopted as the final decision of the Comm issioner by the Social Security Administration's Appeals Cotmcil. Having ekhausted a11 available adm inistrative rem edies, plaintiffhasnow appealedto thiscotu't. W llile plaintiff may be disabled for certain form s of employm ent,the cnzcial facm al detennination iswhetherplaintiffwasdisabled fora11formsofsubstantialgainfulemploym ent. See42U.S.C.j423(d)(2). Therearefotlrelementsofproofwllichmustbeconsideredinmaldng such an analysis' . These elements are s'lmmarized asfollows:(1)objective medicalfactsand clinicalsndings;(2)theopinionsandconclusionsoftreatingphysicians;(3)subjectiveevidence ofphysicalmnnifestati6nsofimpairments,asdescribed through aclaimant'stestimony;and (4) the claim ant's education,vocationalhistory,residualskills,and age. Vitek v.Finch,438 F.2d 1157,1159.-60(4th Cir.1971);Underwoodv.ltibicoftl298F.2d 850,851(4thCir.1962). After a review ofthe record in this case,the courtis constrained to conclude thatthe Co' m m issioner's finaldecision is supported by substantialevidence. The Law Judge's opinion reflects a thorough evaluation of M rs.W ade's m edical problem s and the extent to which they : affected herability to work. Although M rs.W ade àuffered from a com bination ofphysicaland . emotional impairments prior to her date last insured,substantial evidence supports the Law Judge's assessm entofherresidualfunctionalcapacity and his determ ination that she was not disabled fora11form sofsubstantialgainfulem ploym enton orbeforeJune30,2006. 'therecord reflectsthaton June 5,2000,onem onth priorto heralleged onsetdate,M rs. w ade pre 'sented to tlke emergeflcy depm ment at carilion Roanoke M emorialHospitalwith .. ' . epigastricpain. Physicalexamination fndingswere largely nonnal,asidefro'm m ild abdominal . . ' tendem ess. 'M rs. w adewasalert,ftïlly oriented,and exhibited no grossfocalorsensory defk its. (Tr.349). Overayearlater,in July of2001,M rs.W adepresented toherprimary carephysician,Dr. Don Brady,with complaintsoffatigueandchronicbackpain. (Tr.930). Plaintiffreportedthat hersymptom swereprecipitated by prolonged standing and partially relieved by medication. On exnm ination,plaintiffexhibited tenderness in the lllmbararea,buthad fu11range ofm otion,no edem a,and intactneurologicalftmctioning. Dr.Bradynot' ed thatplaintiffwasalertandodented, and thatherenergyhadimproved. He diagnosedplaintiffw ith chronicbackpain resultingfrom a work-related injury.4 (Tr. 931). W hen M rs. W ade returned the following month, she complainedofnumbnessinherlegs,musclespasms,andradiatingpain. (Tr.932). However,a straight1egraisetestWasnegative' ,and plaintiffwasfotmdtohaveintactneurologicalfunctioning andnoebema. Additionally,Mrs.W adedeniedexpedencingdepressionoranxiety. (Tr.932). . In August of 2001, M rj.W ade began treatm ent with Dr.M un'ay Joiner, a physical medicineand rehabilitation sp'ecialist. (Tr.675). Plaintiffcomplained ofradiating lowerback pain resulting from a w ork-related accident. D r.Joiner'sphysicalexnm ination findings indicate .. 1 ' thatplaintiff was alerq oriented,and in no acute distress. (Tr.677). Plaintiff exhibited te'nderness in herhips', knees,andspinewithpalpation. (Tr.678). However,astraight1egraise 4 During the flrstadministrative hearing,plaintifftestified thatshe hm'therback in July of2000,after trippingovqrantmevensurfaceatwork. (Tr.40-41). test was Once again negative, and plaintiff exhibited fu11 skength and intact sensation. Additionally, EM G and nerve conduction studies were S lnonnal gand) without evidence of neuropathy,myopathy,orradiculopathy.'' Cr.673,685). In Octoberof2001,Mzs.W aderetumedtoDr.Bradywith complaintsofbackpainanda recentmigraineheadache. (Tr.933). Dr.Brady notedthatplaintiY ssymptomsofdepression ' . had improved,and physicalexnmination findings were largely tmchanged from previous visits. (Tr.934). ThesamewastrueinDecemberof2001. Althoughplaintiffcontinuedtoexhibitmild lum bar tendem ess,netlrological functioning was grossly intact, plaintiff was f' ully alertand oriented,and sheexhibitednosignsofmood,thought,ormemorydiffculties. (Tr.938). M rs.W aderetarnedto Dr.Joineron December4,2001. Duringtheexnm ination,plaintiff reported expedencing no relief jr .om a recent epidural injection. However, on physical exnmination,M rs.W ade'wasfotmdto haveexperienced tisigrlificantimprovem entwith decreased overalltendenwssandspasms,''andSGnoincreasedtendemess...withextension.'' (Tr.668). A straightlegraisetestwasnegativeandplaintiffsneurologicalfunctioningwasobjectivelyintact. (Tr.668). Dr.Joinercontinued plaintiffon herexisting medication regimen and ordered a CT myeiogrnm orthelumbarspine. Thec' r scan revealed ''degenerativelumbazstenosisatL2-3 withamilddiffusediscbulge.'' (Tr.688). Plaintiffretunied to Dr.Brady and Dr.Joinerin February of2002. Recordsfrom Dr. Bradyindicatethatplaintiffsmigrainesfladimprovedandwerelessfvquent. Sheexhibitedf'u11 rangeofmotion,withnoedemaortendem essinherextremities. (Tr.946). W hen M rs.W ade presented to Dr.Joiner a few weeks later,a spinalexnm inétion revealed only m ild paraspinal tendemess,no specificjointtendemess,andnoincreasedtendemesswith extension pastneutral. (Tr.664). Dr.Joinerrecommendedthatplaintiffbegin an independentexerciseprogrnm with a personaltrainer. (Tr.665). InAprilof1002,afterworkingoutwithapersonaltrainerandseeing a cotmselor,plaintiff reported thatshe was pleased with the results. (Tr.659). Dr.Joiner . . . advisedM rs.w adetoconiinuewithherexistingcotusesofaction,and ,:recommendedcontinued vocationalrehabintervention.'' (Tr.660). lnMayof2002,Mrs.WabepresentedtoDr.Bradywithcomplaintsoflefttneepainand swelling. Dr.Brady's exnmination notes indicate that plaintiff exhibited çtsome tendem ess laterally,''butmaintainedgoodstabilityandhadnoeffusion orpainon compression. (Tr.953). Dr.Brady diagnosed plaintiffwith akneesprain orstrain. W hen M rs.W aderet= edtwo weeks later, she had fullrange of m otion,with no edem a or tenderness,and she reported that her headacheshaddecreasedingequencyand severity. (Tr.955). However,becauseplaintiffalso indicatedthatherheadachesleftherwith afeeling ofconfusion,Dr.Brady recom mendedthatshe follow up with a netlrologist. W hen M rs.W adereturned to Dr.Brady thefollowing m onth,she reported thatshe was being treated with Topnmax and thather tGlsymptomsjofcomplicated migraineghadqnotrecurred.'' (Tr.956). On Septem ber4,2012,M rs.W adepresented to Dr.Brady fora inedication recheck. At thattime,plaintiffcomplained ofworsqning fatigueaftermovingto adifferentresidence. (Tr. 46à). Dr.BradyprescribedVerapnmilforhypertension. Healsonotedthatplaintiffwastnking tivetabsofiorcetperdayforpain. (Tr.466). On Septem ber29,2002,M rs.W adew astransported to the em ergency departm entafterher husband fotmd herunresponsive. (Tr.369). Although plaintiffs physicalexnmination was large1yunremarkable,a''drugscreenwaspositiveforopiatesand antidepressants. (Tr.371-76). The exnm ining physicians opined thatplaintiffs syncope and reported confusion likely resulted from tmintentionalovermedication. . (Tr.372,377). ExaminationnotesindicatethatM rs.W ade Stconfessged)ofthepossibilitytotakingmedicationmorethanrecommendedortnkingmedication ... prescdbedtoEherjhusband,''nnmely,Oxycontin. (Tr.372,383). M rs.W adewasdischarged thefollowingdaywithinstnlctionstofollow upwithherprimarycarephysician. (Tr.372). On October9,2002,M rs.W aderettm ledto Dr.Joinerafterhavingtmdergoneafunctional capacity evaluation. Physical exnm ination fndings were largely lmrem arkable. A spinal exnmination revealedt&mild tendemessand increasedtoney''Eçgnqoincreasedtenderness...with extension,d'andttlnlo SIspecifictenderness.'' (Tr.655). A straight1egraisetestwasnegative, plaintiffssensory function remained intact,and sheexhibited good strength. (Tr.655). W ith respect to the functional capacity evaluétion, Dr. Joiner noted that Esthere w as evidence of symptom exaggeration''and ççpartialsubm axim aleffolt mnking itdifficultto acctlrately assess gMt-s.qW ade'stnzephysicalcapabilities.'' (Tr.655). Dr.Joinerthen sllmm arized theresultsof theftmctionalcapacity evaluation asfollows: Atthe least...,shewasfeltto becapable ofoccasionallihing 20 pounds,frequentlifting 15 pounds,constantlifthlg 6 potm ds.She could sit frequently,stand occasionally,walk occasionally,bend occasionally,reach shoulder level and below knees occasionally, waistlevelfrequently,clim b occasionally,squatinfrequently,kneel infrequently,crawlinfrequently,twistoccasionally. (Tr.655). Dr.JoinerwentontonotethatM rs.W adewasGlcapableoffu11tmrestrictedduty''based on the resultsofthe functionalcapacityevaluation. (Tr.656). . Dr.Joinersubsequently ordered an M RIofplaintiffslumbar spine. The M IU revealed . degenerative disc changes atseverallevels,butshowed no evidence ofdisc hem iation,spinal stenosis,orpathologicaldestructiveprocess. (Tr.689). On November 13,2012,M rs.W ade reported to Dr.Joiner that she w as experiencing incremsed pain asa resultoftherecentweather,and thatshe w ashaving çtdiftk ulty w ith standing, sitfing,walking,nnd essentially a11activities.'' (Tr.651). On physical exnm ination,plaintiff , exhibited spinaltendem ess to palpation. However,a straight1eg raise testwas negative,her sensation wasintact,and shehad fullstrength. (Tr.651). Dr.Joinernoted thatplaintiffwas releasedtoreturntoworkbasedop. thepreviousfunctionalcapacityevaluation. (Tr.652). Overthecotlrsçofthqfollowingyear,M rs.W adecontinuedtq seeDr.Brady. In Febnzary of2003,Dr.Brady npted thatplaintiffwas alertand oriented,with no evidence ofany m ood, thought, or m emory problem s. 965). Physical exnmination findings were lazgely . unchanged from previousvisits. Cpnsistçntfndingswere docllm ented in April,Jlm e,August, andSeptemberof2003. (Tr.970,973,980,985). M rs.W adesaw Dr.Brady apd Dr.Joineragain in Octoberof2004. Dr.Brady'sphysical exnminations findings were essentially unrem arkable. He noted that plaintiff denied expedencing depression ornnxiety,and thatthere were Gtno signs ofm ood,thought,orm em ory diY culty.'' (Tr.535). W henplaintiffsaw Dr.Joinerfivedayslater,shereportedincreasedpain afterddvingforaEjob club,''wllich requiredhertotravel138milesroundtrip. (Tr.645). On physicalexnmination,plaintiffwasfotmd tohaveback tendem essand m ild spasm s,butastraight legraijetestwasnegative,plaintiffssensationwasintact,andherstrengthwasgood. (Tr.646). Dtlring afollow-up appointm entwith Dr.Joinerin July of2005,M rs.W ade continued to complain of lower back and extremity pain, but acknowledged that her medications were :thelping . .'' (Tr.641). Dr.'Joinernotedthatshewasnottmdergoinganyform ofphysicaltherapy at that tim e, but was involved in vocational rehabilitation efforts. Although plaintiff still exhibited som e tendem ess on examination,a straight leg raise testwas negative an. d plaintiff continuedtohaveintactsensationandfu11strength. (Tr.642). Shewasgivenasteroidinjection andadvisedtorett m zeverythreetosixmonths. (Tr.642). 10 On August 8,2012,over six years after plaintiffs insured status expired,Dr.Brady completed an assessm entofplaintiffsphysicalability to perfonn work-related activities. Dr. Brady opinedthatplaintiffcould occasionally liftlessthanten potmds,stand forno morethan ten m hmtesatatiine and foratotaloflessthan twohotlrsin an eight-hotlrworkday,and sitforless thantwohotlrsinaneight-hourworkday. (Tr.1271-72). Dr.Bradyfurtheropinedthatplaintiff could never climb, balance, kneel, crouch, crawl, or stoop; that she could engage in only occasionalreaching;andthatshewouldneedtobeabsentmorethanthreetimespermonth. (Tr. 1272-74). Dr.Brady also opined thatplaintiffsconditionhad existed and persisted with such limitationssinceJuly 14,2000. (Tr.1274). After considering a11 of the evidence of record,the Law Judge determined that M rs. W ade's' physicalimpairmentswerenotso severe asto preventperlbrm ance ofa lim ited range of lightwork activity through herdate'lastinsured. In m aking this determination', the Law Judge found thatM rs.W ade's'allegationsoftotally disabling limitationsdlzdng therelevanttimeperiod weretGoutofproportionwiththeweakand'hconsistentobjectivemedicalsndingscontainedinthe record.'' (Tr.2052). Althoughççimaging confirmed degenerativediscdisease,''theLaw Judge notedthatthemedicalrecordsweredevoidofanyevidenceofswelling orinflammation,muscle atrophy,orconsistentdifficulty m oving. (Tr.2052). TheLaw Judgealsonotedthatplaintiffs migraine headaches were intermittentand generally controlled with the medicationsprovided. (Tr.2052). The Law Judge also declined to acceptDr.Brady's 2012 assessm entofplaintiff'sphysical abilityto work. Although the Law Judgerecognized thatDr.Brady wasplaintiffsprim ary care . ' . ' . physicianformanyyears,theLaw Judgeemphasizedthatççtilisopinionwasofferedsixyearsafter theclaimant'sdatelastinsuredand twelveyearsafterherallegedonsetdate.'' (Tr.2052). The Law Judge also noted thatthe limitations identised by Dr.Brady were inconsistent with the exnmination recordsfrom the relevantperiod,aswellasçdthe claim ant'srelease back to work by Dr Joinerin2ù02.'' (Yr.2052). TheLaw Judge 'assigned greaterweighttotheopinionsofDr. Jolm Sadlerand Dr.JosephDuckwall,who reviewedtherecordsattherequestofthestateagency. Both ofthe state agency physiciansopined thatplaintiffcould work atthe lightexertionallevel withposturalandenvironmentallimitatiôns. (Tr.87-88,111-12). The Law Judgefotmd that theirassessmentsweremoreconsistentwiththerecordasawhole,includingtheobjectivefindings on examination. (Tr.2052). TheLaw Judgealso gave greaterweightto thereportsf' rom Dr. Joiner,which indicated thatplaintiffwasfully capableofmeetingtheliftingrequirem entsforlight work. (Tr.2052). ' The Law Judge also concluded thatM zs.W ade'smentalimpairm entsdid notrenderher disabled fora11form s ofsubstantialgainf'ulem ploym entor otherwise contdbute to an overall disability. In evaluating herim pairmentsatstep three ofthesequentialanalysis,the Law Judge determined thatplaintiff had Eçm oderate difficulties''with concentration,persistence,or pace. (Tr' .2043). TheLaw Judjenotedihatalthoughplaintiffttintermittentlycomplainedofissueswith depression to providers,...mentalstatusexnminationswere generally benign,''and them edical evidencçGlgenerally supports(onlylminimallimiàtionsinthisarem'' (Tr.2043). Nonetheless, baseèontheplaintiffsallegationsofdepression,fatigue,andmedicationsideeffectsduringthe relevanttime period,the Law Judge found itappropriateto limitM rs.W adeto çdsimple,routine taskgs)in alow stressenvironmentfreeofproduction orpaced work and allowingforregularly scheduled breks.'' (Tr.2043). TheLaw Judge found thatsuch limitationswould adequately accommodateanyallegeddeficitsinthisareaofftmctiozling. (Tr.2043). 12 Onappealtothiscourt,theplaintif: through cotmsel,makesfourmglmentsin supportof hermotionforsllmmaryjudgment. First,iheplaintiffarguesthattheLaw Judge'sassessmentof herm entalimpainnentsisnotsupported bysubstantialevidence. Relying ontheFourth Circuit's decision in M ascio,the plaintiff argueg that the Law Judge's findings regarding her residual functionalcapacity(ççRu FC''),andthecorrespondinghypotheticalquestionposedtothevocational expert,did notsuffciently accom modateherm oderatedifficultieswith concentration,persistence, orpace. Forthe following reasons,however,thecourtistmableto agree. In M ascio,theLaw JudgecreditedMascio'sdiagnosisofanadjustmentdisorderandalso found thatshehad m oderate diftkultieswith m aintaining concentration,persistence,orpaceasa sideeffectofherpain m edication. M ascio,780 F.3d at638. Although thehypotheticalposedto the vocatio 'nal' expertttsaid nothing about M ascio's m entallimitationsy''the vocational expert included an çGunsolicited addition of çtmskilled work,'''which Etmatched the ALJ'S findings regarding M ascio'sresidualfunctionalcapacity.'' Id. The Fourth Circuitultimately Ragreeld) with othercircuitsthatthe ALJ doesnotaccount ifora claimant's lim itationsin concentration, persistence,andpaceby restrictingthehypotheticalquestion to simple,routinetasksortmsldlled work.''' ld.(quotingWinschelv.Comm'rofSoc.Sec-,631F.3d 1i76,1180(11thCir.2011)). The Courtreasoned thatGtihe ability to perfonn simple tasksdiffers from the ability to stay on task.'' 1d. Because the Law Judée failed to explain ççwhy M ascio's m oderate lim itation in concentration,persistenceand paceatstep three(did)qottranslateinto alimitation in M ascio's residualfunctionalcapacity,''theFourth Circuitconcluded thataremand wasrequired. Id. v Upon' review of the record in this cas'e, the court concludes that the Law Judge's mssessment of M rs.W ade's m entalimpairments is supported by substantialevidence and that rem and isnotrequired underM ascio. In determ izling thatM rs.W ade had m oderate dio culties with concentration,persistence,or pace,the Law Judge partially credited her allegations of depression,fatigue,and side effects from m edication. After considering plaintiffs particular difficulties in these areas offunctioning,the Law Judge found thatshe was lim ited to çGsim ple, tmskilled tasks,in a1ow stressenvironmentthatallowed forregularly scheduled breaks,required only occasionaldecision-mnking,andwasnotproduction rateorpacework with strictproduction standards.''s tTr.2044). The Law Judke specifically fotmd thatsuch restrictions adequately accomm odated her diftk ulties with concentration,persistence,orpa' cy,and thatthe record as a wholeindicatedthatshedidnotrequireadditionalwork-relatedlimitations. (Tr.2043,2051-52). Asnoted above,theLaw Judgeem phasizedthatplaintiff sm edicalrecordsdid notdocllm entany cognitive lim itations on exnmination or suggest that additional functional restrictions were necessaryasaresultofhernonexertionalimpainnents. (Tr.2051). Thus,unlikeM ascio,theLaw Judgedidnotsllmm arilylim itM rs.W adetotm skilled work withoutexplanation. lnstead,theLaw Judge form ulated specificlimitationsthathefotmd would sufficiently accomm odate plaintiffs particular deficiencies in the area of concentration, persistence,orpace. Thecourtissatisfied thattheLaw Judgeprovided an adequateexplanation ofhow hisRFC findingsfully accotmted forM rs.W ade'snonexertionallimitations,and thathis assessm entis supported by substantialevidence. The sim ple fact is that M rs.W ade received roùtinean&orconservAtivetreatmentfordepression andanxietypriortoherdatelastinstlred,and thatnopractitionereversuggestedtàatshehadamentalorhonexertionalimpairmentthatresulted in m öresignificantfllnctionallim itationsthan thoseidentified by theLaw Judge. M oreover,M rs. S W ithrespecttothelatterlimitation,theLaw Judgefurtherexplaineddtlring theadm inistrativehearingthat heintendedtoSçeliminatethosejobsthathavestictproductionrateorpacerequirementswhetherthat'sonafactory lineorsomethingwhereifyouslow downandyoucan'tkeepup,thenitslowsdowneverybodyelse.'' (Tr.2076-77). Acdordingly,thevocationalexpertfocusedonjobsthatdidnotinvolvefast-paced' assemblywork. (Tr.2077). 14 W adewasrepeatedly foundto exhibitno signsofm ood,thought,orm emory diffkultiespriorto the expiration ofherinsured status. Fora1lofthese reasons,the courtconcludesthatthe Law Judge's second decision com portsw ith M ascio. In hersçcond argllm ent,plaintiffonce again arguesthatthe Law Judge erred in failing to give signiscantweightto Dr.Brady'sopinions. Having reviewed the record in its entirety,the ' ' . . courtrem ainsconvinced thatsubstN tialevidencesupportsthe Law Judge'sdecision. Although Dr.Brady did opine thàtplaintiffsmusculoskeletalproblem srendered herdisabled priorto the tenuination of her insured status,Dr.Brady m ade his assessm entin 2012,six years after the plaintiffs date last insm ed. M oreover,the Law Judge accurately observed thatthe extrem e limitations assessed by Dr.Brady were inconsistentwith the objective evidence dtuing the relevanttimepeliod,includingDr.érady'sown physicalexnmination findings. M oreover,the courtbelievesthattheLa'w Judgereasonably determined to give greaterweightto othermedical . evidence,including thereportsf' rom Dr.Sadler,Dr.Duckwall,and Dr.Joiner. The Law Judge reasonably concluded that the opinions of the state agency physicians and Dr. Joiner were generallymoreconsistentwiththeobjectivefindingsandothermedicalevidence.6 Inshort,the courtbelievesthattheEaw Judge'sdecision to discotmttheopinionsoffered by Dr.Brady iswell supportedbytherecord. See.e.c.,Bishopv.Comm'rofSoc.Sec.,583F.App'x65,66(4thCir. 2004)(affirming theLaw Judge'sdecisiontorejecttheopinion ofatreatingphysician thatwas 6Alltllreephysiciansfoundthatplaintiffwascapableofmeetingtheliqingrequirementsforlightwork,and 00thofthestateagencyphysiciansdeterminedthatplaintiffcouldsit stand,and/orwalk foraboutsixhottrsin an eight-hourworkday. (Tr.87,124). AlthoughDr.Joinerfotmdthatplaintiffcould,ataminimum,Rsitgequently, stand occasionally,(and!walk occasionally''(Tr.655),such findings are notinconsistentwith the regulatory defmition oflightwork,apd do nototherwiseunderminetheLaw Judge'sconclusionthatplàintiffcould perform a limitedrangeoflightwork. See20C.F.R.j1567(b)(explainingthattheççfull''rangeoflightworktsrequiresagood dealofwalking orstanding,pz ...involvessitting mostofthetimewith some pushing and pulling ofarm orleg controls'')(emph:sisadded). ' 15 ççinconsistentwith themildtomoderatediagnosticsndings''and çltheconservativenatureofrthe plaintiffs)treatmenf'). Plaintiffs third argum ent is that the Law Judge failed to conduct a proper function-by-function analysisin assessing herresidualfunctionalcapacity. Inparticulay,plaintiff . contends thatthe Law Judge failed to m ake suo cientfm dings regarding her alleged need to tifrequently change positions and take breaks to restor lie dow n.'' P1.'s Br.Supp.Sum m .J.34, D kt.N o.19. Upon review of the record and applicable caselaw, the court finds tltis mp lment tmpersuasive. Although guidelines from the Social Sectuity Administration instnzct the Law Judge to take a çlfunction-by-ftmction''approach to determining a claimant'sresidualflmctional capacity,SSR 96-8p,1996 SSR LEXIS 5(Ju1y2,1996),theFourthCircuithasElrejectedaperse rulerequiring rem and when theALJdoesnotperform an explicitfnnction-by-function analysis.'' Mascio,780F.3dat635. lnstead,theCourtagreedwiththeSecondCircuitthatç4G(rlemandmay beappropriate ...whereanALJfailsto assessaclaim ant'scapacitytoperform relevantfLmctions, despitecontradictory evidence in iherecord,orwhere otherinadequaciesin theALJ'Sanalysis fnlstrate fnenningf'ulieview.''' Id.(quoting Cichockiv.Astrue,729 F.3d 172,177 (2d Cir. 2013:. In thiscase,itisclearfrom theLaw Judge'sdecision thathe consideredM rs.W ade's claimedlimitations,butfoundthatsuch limitationswereinconsistentwith thefindingsonphysical exnm inationpriortoherdate lastinsuredandtheplaintiffsown statem entsto t' reatingphysicians dtlrlngthattimeperiod. (Tr.2051-52). TheLaw Judgealso emphasizedthathisRFC findings were largily consistentwith the opirtions ofthe state agency physicians and Dr.Joiner. 2052). Upon review ofthe record,the courtisconvinced thatthe Law Judge'streatmentof 'è PlaintiY sciaimedlimitationsisconsistentwiththeprotocolestablishedinMascioandMonroev. 16 Colvin,826 F.3d 176 (4th Cir.2016),and thatsubstantialevidence supportstheLaw Judge's evaluation ofplaintiffsresidualfunctionalcapacitythrough the date lastinsured. Finally, plaintiff contends that the Law Judge's assessment of her allegations and subjectivecomplaintsisnotsupportedbysubstantialevidence. AlthoughM rs.W adeallegedthat she experienced totally disabling pain,discom fort,and fatigue priorto her date lastinsttred,the Law Judgefotmd thattheplaintiffsstatementsregarding theintensity and limiting effectsofher sym ptom swere notentirely consistentwith the m edicalevidence and other evidence ofrecord. The Law Judge provided specifiç reasons for his decision to not fully creditthe plaintiffs statèments regarding the severity of her symptoms. For instance,the Law Judge noted that plaintiY ssubjectivecomplaintswereSçoutofproportionwiththeweakandinconsistentobjective medicalfndingscontainedintherecord.'' (Tr.2052). Ultlmately,theLaw Judgefolmdthatthe evidencesim ply did Gtnotsupportany workrelated lim itationsthatwouldprecludeal1workpriorto Jlme2006.5''(Tr.2052). Upon review ofthe record,the courtis tmable to discern any error in the Law Judge's credibility sndings. TheLaw Judgethoroughly considered plaintiffsmedicalhistory alongwith herown allegationsregardingthe symptomsofherphysicaland m entalimpairments. Thecourt ' agreesthatplaintiffsallegationsoftotallydisablingsymptomsare som ewhatinconsistentwith the complaintsctoolmented in thetreatmentrecords,the objectivefindingson exnmination,andthe : . : . . refativelyçonservativetreatmentmeasuresprovidedbeforeherdatelastinsured. Thus,thecom't is satisfied that substantial evidence supports the Law Judge's decision not to f' ully credit plaintiff'sallegations. In affirm ing the Com missioner'sfinaldecision,thecourtdoesnotsuggestthatM rs.W ade w asfree ofa1lpain and discom fortdtlring the relevanttim e period. Indeed,them edicalevidence confnnsthatplaintiffsuffered from impairmentsthatcould beexpected to resultin subjective lim itations. However,therecordsimply doesnotincludem edicalevidencethatisconsistentwith totally disabling symptomatology priorto the expiration ofplaintiffsinsured status. ltmustbe recognizedthattheinabilitytoworkwithoutanysubjectivecomplaintsdoesnotofitselfrendera claimantdisabled. SeeCraigv.Chater,76F.3d585,592(4thCir.1996). Itappearstothecourt thattheLgw Judgeconsidereda11ofthemedicalevidence,aswellasa11ofthesubjectivefactors reasonably supported by therecord,in adjudicatingMzs.W ade'sclaim forbenefits. Thus,the courtconcludesthatal1facetsofthe Comm issioner'sfinaldecision are supported by substantial evidepce. Asageneralrule,theresolution ofconflictsintheevidenceisam atterwithintheprovince . ï ' oftheCommissioner,even ifthecourtmightresolvethecontlictsdifferently. Richardson,402 U.b.at400-01;Craic,76F.3dat589;Oppenheim v.Finch,495F.2d396,397(4thCir.1974). Forthe reasonsstated,the cotu' tfindsthe Comm issioner'sresolution ofthe pertinentcontlictsin therecord in thiscasetobesupported by substantialevidence. Accordingly,thefinaldecision of theComm issionermustbeaffrmed. TheClerk isdirected to send copiesofthism em orandllm opinion to allcotm selofrecord.. DATED:This -à** dayofSeptember, 2019. * SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge 18
]]>
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.
