Marchese v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 7:2018cv00194 - Document 21 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 09/27/2019. (aab)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK' S OFFICEU,S.DlsT.O URT AT ROANOG ..VA FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR Tlœ W ESTERN D ISTRICT O F V IRG W IA ROAN OK E D W ISION SEF 32 2215 JUL' D 6Y1 1V ANGEL LUIS M ARCHESE, Plaintiff, CivilActionN o.7:18CV00194 M EM ORANDUM OPINION ANDREW SAUL, Comm issionerofSocialSectlrityyA By:H on.G len E.Conrad SeniorU nited States D istrictJudge D efendant. Plaintiff has filed this action challenging certain portions of the final decision of the Comm issioner of Social Sectlrity eptablishing plaintiffs entitlem ent to a closed peziod of . disability for purposes of plaintic s claim s for disability instlrance benefits and supplemental secmityincomebeneGtstmdertheSocialSecurityAct,asnmended,42 U.S.C.jj416(i)and423, and 42 U.S.C.j 1381etseq.,respectively. Jtlrisdiction oftlliscourtispttrsuantto 42 U.S.C. j405(g)and42U.S.C.j1383(c)(3). Thiscourt'sreview islim itedtoadetermination asto whethertherçissubstantialevidence to supportthe Com missioner'sconclusion thatplaintiffwastmderadisability from M arch 1,2012 through September25,2014,butnotthereafter. Ifsuch subsiaktialevidence exists,the final decisionoftheCommissionermustbeaffirmed. Hays#.Sullivan,907F.2d1453,1456(4thCir. 1990);Laws v.Celebrezze,368 F.2d 640,642 (4th Cir. 1966). Stated briefly,substantial evidencehmsbeen defined assuch relevantevidence,considering therecord asa whole,asm ight Marchese v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 21 befotmd adequateto supportaconclusion by areasonablemind. Richardson v.Perales,402U.S. 389,401(1971). %çltconsistsofmorethan amère scintilla ofevidencebutmay belessthan a #Andrew Saulisnow the CommissionerofSocialSecurity,and he isautomatically substimted asaparty pursuanttoFederalRuleofCivilProcedure25(d);seealso 42U.S.C.j405(g)(action stlrvivesregardlessofany changeinthepersonoccupyingtheox ceofCommissionerofSocialSectlrity). Dockets.Justia.com preponderance.'' Hancockv.Astnze,667F.3d470,472(4thCir.2012)(internalquotationmarks andcitationomitted). Thus,GtthethresholdforsuchevidentiarysuY ciencyisnothigh.'' Biestek v.Bernr laill,139S.Ct.1148,1154(2019). The plaintiff,M gelLuisM archese,wasbom on August22,1971. He did notgraduate from high schoolbuteventuallyenrnedaGED (Tr.270). M r.Marchesehasbeenemployedasa laborerandforkliftoperator. (Tr.257). Helastworkedonaregularandsustainedbasisin2011. (Tr.48). OnDecember5,2013,Mr.M archesefiledapplicationsfordisabilityinslzrancebenefhs and supplem entalsecurity incom e benefits. ln filing his currentclaim s,M r.M archese alleged thathebecnme disabledforal1form sofsubstantialgainfulemploym enton M arch 1,2011,dueto lowerback pain and arthritisin both hands. (Tr.216,269). Atthetimeofan administrative hearing on M arch 8,2017,plaintiffamended hisapplicationsso asto reflectan alleged disability onsetdateofM arch 1,2012. (Tr.58). M r.M archesemaintainsthathehasremaineddisabledto the presenttim e. W ith respectto his application for disability instlrance benefks,the record reveals that M r.M archese m etthe instlred status requirements ofthe Actatallrelevanttim es coveredbythefnaldecisionoftheCommissioner. Seecenerallv42U.S.C.jj416(i)and423(a). M r.M archese's applicationswere denied upon initialconsideration and reconsideration. Hethenrequestedandreceiveda#-qnovohearingandreview beforeanAdministrativeLaw Judge. ln an opinion dated M ay 3, '2017, the Law Judge ruled thatM r.M archese wasdisabled for a1l forms ofsubstantialgainfulemploym entfrom M arch 1,2012 tllrough September25,2014,due prim arily to rightupperextrem ity impairmentsthatprecluded plaintifffrom having effectiveuse ofl' lis right,dom inanthand forhandling,fingering,or feeling. H ow ever,based on the treatm ent plaintiffreceived during thatperiod,including rightthum b and wristslzrgeries,the Law Judge determinedthatplaintiffexpedencedm edicalim provem entasofSeptember26,2014,resulting in an increase in llis residual flm ctional capacity. The selected date of m edical im provem ent coincidedwith apost-operativeevaluation,atwhichM r.M archesereported to beisdoing well''and wasfoundtohaveççgoodmotionofthedigits''withonlyTiminimaldiscomfolt'' (Tr.26,645). In hisopinion,theLaw Judge fotmd thatM r.M archesecontinuesto sufferfrom thesnme severe impainnentsthatwere presentfrom M arch 1,2012 tlzrough September25,2014,nnmely, righthand andm istosteoartluitiswith correctivesmgeries,obesity,and lumbago. (Tr.18,24). TheLaw Judgealso foundthatplaintifflisubsequently developedthefollowingadditionalGsevere' impainnents:righttriggerGngerwith correctivestlrgery,bilateralepicondylitis,and history ofleft shoulder impingement.'' (Tr.24). However,the Law Judge determined that,despite such impainnents,M r.M archeseretained thecapacitytoperform abroaderrangeoflightwork activity asofSeptember26,2014. The Law Judge assessed plaintiffs residualcapacity forthe period beginning on thatdateasfollows: After carefulconsideration of the entire record,the tmdersigned findsthat,beginning on Septem ber26,2014,the claim anthashad theresidualfhnctionalcapacityto perform lightwork asdefined in 20C.F.R.(jj)404.156709 and416.967419 excepthecanneverbe exgosed to hazards like hazardous machinery and unprotected helghts;occasionally perform handling,fingezing,and feeling with the right hand; and have occasional exposlzre to temperature extrem es,wetness,hllmidity,andvibrations. (Tr.26). Given such a residualfunctionalcapacity,and after considering testimony from a vocationalexpert,theLaw Judgedeterm inedthatM r.M archeserem ainsunabletoperform any of hispastrelevantwork. (Tr.33). However,theLaw JudgefoundthatsinceSeptember26,2014, M r.M archesehaspossessedthecapacityto perform otherlightwork rolesthatexistin signifkant nllmbers in the nationaleconomy,such as thejobsofusherand counterclerk. (Tr.33-34). Accordingly,the Law Judge concluded thatplaintiY sdisability ended on Septem brr26,2014, and that he has not become disabled again since that date. See cenerallv 20 C.F.R. jj 404.1594(9(8)and 416.994(b)(5)(vii). Thus,the Law Judgeruled thatMT.M archesewas 3 entitledtoaclosedperiodofdisabilityfrom M arch 1,2012throughSeptember25,2014. (Tr.34). The Law Judge'sopinion was adopted asthe finaldecision ofthe Comm issionerby the Social Security Adm izlistration's Appeals Colm cil. Having exhausted a1l available admirlistrative remedies,M r.M archesehasnow appealed to thiscourt. W hile plaintiff m ay be disabled for certain forms of employm ent,the crucialfacttlal determination is whetherplaintiff is disabled for a11forms of substantialgainfulemployment. See 42 U.S.C.jj 423(d)(2)and 1382c(a). There are fotlrelements ofproofwhich mustbe consideredinmakingsuchananalysis. Theseelementsaresllmmarizedasfollows:(1)objective medicalfactsand clinicalfndings;(2)the opiionsand conclusionsoftreating physicians;(3) subjectiveevidenceofphysicalmanifestationsofimpairments,asdescribedthrough aclaimant's testimony;and(4)theclaimant'seducation,vocationalllistory,residualskills,andage. Vitekv. Finch,438F.2d 1157,1159-60 (4th Cir.1971);Underwoodv.Ribicoff,298F.2d 850,851(4th Cir.1962). After a review of the record in this case,the courtis constrained to conclude thatthe Comm issioner'sfinaldecision issupported by substantialevidence. Although M r.M azchesehas a history of musculoskeletal dysfunction, substantial evidence supports the Law Judge's determination thatsubstantialmedicalimprovem entoccurred asofSeptember26,2014,and that M 1..M archesehasbeen ableto perform certain lightwork xolessincethatdate. The record reveals that between M arch 1,2012 and October 31,2013,M r.M archese tmderwentfolzrsm gicalprocedm eson hisdom inantrighthand and wrist. On M arch 22,2012, plaintifftmderwenta rightthumb capometacapal(CM C)jointarthrodesisatCarilion Clinic's nmbulatory stzrgery center. (Tr.334-36). Plaintiffsorthopaedic surgeon,Dr.Cay M iedsch, cleared him to return to work in August of 2012. (Tr.519). Although plaintiff izlitially progressed well,he rem rned to Dr.M ierisch in April and M ay of 2013 with complaints of 4 persistentpainthatpreventedMm from workingwithhisrighthand. (Tr.365,529). OnMay9, 2013, Dr. M iedsch rem oved surgical hardware and performed tendon tenolysis on two of plaintic sdghtthllmb tendons. (Tr.368,370,402,533,1004). Followingtheprocedttre,Mr. M archese continuedto complain ofpersistentpain thatwaspreventing llim 9om workingwithhis right hand. (Tr.443-44). On October 28,2013, Dr.M iedsch performed a right wrist arthroscopy with debridem ent of lignment tears and synovitis, including the radiocap al and midcarpaljoints. (Tr.404). Overthe nextseveralmonths,plaintiffcontinued to complain of thllmb and m istpain. (Tr.458-59.462. -65,471). Consequently,on M ay 15,2014,Dr. M ierischperformedarightthumbCM C suspensionartk oplasty. (Tr.556). Treatm entnotesreflectsteady improvem entin plaintiY srighthand symptomsfollowing theM ay 15,2014 procedure. In Jtmeof2014,M r.M archesereported thathewasdoingwelland thathispainwascontrolledwithmedications. (Tr.578). Onphysicalexamination,plaintiffhad Etgood range ofm otion ofthedigits''and çdsom ediscomfort...secondary to pain and swellingy'' wllich wasnotedtobeStappropriateforthisintervalofhealing.'' (Tr.578-79). Hewasreferred to occupationaltherapy for further treatm ent. In July of 2014,plaintiff reported continued improvementinhiswristpain,arldwasfoundtobeGtdoingwellpostoperatively.'' (Tr.581-82). On September26,2014,M r.M archesewasonceagain fotmdto beQçdoing wellpostoperatively.'' (Tr.645). Theexnmining clinician noted thatplaintiffspainwascontrolled with medications, andthathehadçGgoodmotionofthedigitswithminimaldiscomfort''andSçgoodopposition.'' (Tr. 645). TheexnminationreportalsoindicatesthatM r.M archeseStstateld)thathehasbeenworlcing asapainter,''butplaintiffdezlieddoing so attheadministrativehearing. (Tr.645). Ultimately, plaintiffwas advised to continue tnking M obic,a nonsteroidalanti-inflnmm atory dnzg,and to continuewithrangeofmotion andstrengtherlingexercises. (Tr.645). 5 0n November 18,2014,M r.M archese presented to Dr.Ayesha NazliatNew Horizons H ealthcare w ith com plaints of pain in llis left upper nrm . Plaintiff reported thathe had been tihelping ghisquncle ...move''and had tçprobably .. sprained his nrm.'' (Tr.675). An . exnm ination ofplaintiffsleftarm andshoulderrevealednoswelling orredness,and hewasfotmd tohavefu11rangeofmotionwithoutpain. (Tr.675). Dr.Nazlidiagnosedplaintiffwithasprain and continued hisexisting m edications. On Novem ber 25, 2014, M r. M archese returned to Dr. M ierisch for a follow-up appointm ent. Plaintiffreported thatthathe continued to experiencepain in laisrightthumb,and thathecould notdo any tiheavy gripping''orSsresumeiliswork asademolitionist'' (Tr.878). On physicalexnm ination,M r.M archese was found to have çtgood m otion of the digits with mirlimaldiscomforty''Slgood opposition,''and Giappropriately''continued wenkness. (Tr.878). An x-ray ofplaintiffsrightthllmb showedthatthearthroplasty wasintactand revealed only mild arthropathy (ointdisease). (Tr.878,954). Dr.M ierisch noted thatany persistentpain and wenknessmaybetheresultofartluitis. Headministeredaninjectionoftheradiocapaljointand providedathumb spicabrace. (Tr.878). Ata follow-up appointm enton January 6,2015,plaintiff advised Dr.M ierisch thathis wristwasfeeling better,butthathe continued to experience tendem essatthe base ofhisthllmb. (Tr.887). On physicalexnmination,plaintiffexhibite' d reduced grip strength,butcontinued to ( have ç<good rangeofmotion ofthedigitswith minimaldiscomfort.'' (Tr.887). Dr.Mierisch ordered aCT scan to assesstheSTT joint. TheresultsoftheCT scanwereSinonnalexceptfor verymildradiocapalarthritis.'' (Tr.893). On January 22,2015,Dr.M iedsch wrotea(ç'ro W hom ltM ay Concern''lettercontirming thatplaintiffhadbeenapatientinhispracticesince2010. (Tr.952). Henotedthatplaintiffhad tmdergone severalnon-operative and surgicaltreatmentm odalities to address llis right thumb 6 impairment,and thatplaintiffcontinuesto experiencepain in histhllmb and m istthataffectshis abilitytogripandlift. (Tr.952). Dr.Mierischspecitkallyopinedthatplaintiffhasatipennanent impairmentofhisrightupperextremity''thatûGpreventgsqhim from returning tojobsrequiring mmmallabor.'' (Tr.952). On Febnzary 24,2015,M r.M archesepresentedto Dr.Nazliwith complaintsofpain in his leftelbow and shoulder. On physicalexam ination,plaintiff was fotmd to have fullrange of m otion in hisleftelbow withoutpain. However,heexhibited painfillrangeofmotion in hisleft shoulder. (Tr.671). OnApril2,2015,plaintiffretllrned to Dr.M ierisch forafollow-up appointment. Physical exnmination fndings were unchanged, except for Ifpain with gripgpingq.'' (Tr.893). Dr. M ierisch assessedplaintiffwith chronicm ist/thumbpain,butnoted thatnoadditionalsurgerywas indicated atthatpoint. HealsonotedthatplaintiffiilwlillnotbeabletouseEhis)righthandfor any heavy manuallaborin thef' uture''and Sslmjay require long term pain management.'' (Tr. 894). On April6,2015,M r.M archesepresented to Carilion ClinicOrthopaedicforanevaluation ofhisleftelbow pain,which had reportedly been presentforsix months. (Tr.900). Hewas diagnosedwithleftlateralepicondylitisforwlzichhereceivedacortisoneinjection. Plaintiffwas alsoprovidedwithawristbraceandahomeexerciseprogrnm. (Tr.903). On M ay 14,2015,plaintiffreturned to Dr.Nazliforafollow-up appointm ent. Although M r.M archese continued to com plain ofleftshoulderpain,physicalexam ination findings were unremarkable. (Tr.669). Dr.Nazlireferred plaintiffto Carilion ClinicOrthopaedic,where hewasexnmined again on M ay 19,2015. M r.M archesereported thathiselbow pain had improved sincehislastvisit, butthathe had been experiencing shoulderpain fora few months. (Tr.912). Based on the exnmination findings,Julie Crocker,a physician'sassistant,diagnosed plaintiffwith leftrotator cuff syndrome. She administered a cortisone injection and provided plaintiff with home exercises. (Tr.914). Overthe nextfew months,M r.M archese continued to complain of shoulderpain. An M R. Istudy showed Glbursitisand tendinosis,butno frnnk tears.'' (Tr.931). Likewise,x-rays revealednosignsofacuteosseousinjtlryorarthritis. OnAugust6,2015,Dr.M ierischdiagnosed plaintiffwith leftshouldersubacrom ialim pingem ent. Basedon theclinicalfindingsandthelack of success with nonoperative treatm ent, Dr. M ielisch recomm ended that plaintiff tmdergo arthroscopicstlrgery. (Tr.933). ThesurgicalprocedtlrewasperfonnedonSeptember16,2015. (Tr.942). Treatmentrecords reflectthatplaintiffs symptoms improved following the procedlzre. On Septem ber22,2015,M r.M archese reported thathe wasçsdoing well''and thathispain was controlled With medications. (Tr.942). Thesamewastruein Octoberof2015. Plaintiffwas observed to be çtdoing wellpostoperatively,''and reported ttslow and steady progresswith both pain and Erangeofmotionl.'' (Tr.949). Five m onths later, in M arch of 2017, M r. M archese presented to Cmilion Clinic Orthopaedicwithanew complaintofGlrightring fingercatching''forwhich hehadnotyetreceived anytreatment. (Tr.962). Plaintiffalsocomplained ofdghtelbow painandincreasedpainwith grippingandlifting. Dr.M iedschdiagnosedplaintiffwithtdggersngerandepicondylitis. (Tr. 965). Headmizlisteredatriggerfingerinjection,andrecommendedhomeexercisesandVoltaren crenm forplaintiff selbow sym ptom s. Ata follow -up appointm enton April28,2016,M r.M archese reported som e im provem ent withllisrightringfinger,butworserlingpaininhisrightelbow. (Tr.973). X-raysoftheelbow 8 revealednoacuteosseouschanges. (Tr.976). Dr.M ierischadministeredanelbow injectionand advisedplaintifftocontinuewithhishomeexerciseregimen. (Tr.976). M r.M archeserettzm edtoDr.M iedsch on Septem ber13,2016. . Hereportedthattheright ringfingerpainhadreturnedfollowingtheinjection,andexpressedinterestinsurgery. (Tr.993). OnOctober3,2016,Dr.M ierischperfonnedatriggerreleaseprocedure. (Tr.1004). Fotzrm onths later,on January 31,2017,M r.M archese presented to Dr.M iedsch foran evaluationofllisrightelbow. PlaintiffdescribedhispainasGçm oderate,''and indicated thatitwas Gçconfined to Ethel medial and . . associated with no other symptoms.'' (Tr. 1003). Electrodiagnostic studies,which were obtal ed to assess plaintifffor cubitaltllnnelsyndrom e, were çlnormal.'' (Tr.1003). On physicalexnmination,plaintiffexhibited some rightelbow tendernessand afew positivestresstestsigns. (Tr.1007). However,plaintiffhadfullflexion, extension,andpronation rangeofm otion,and hiselbow showedno signsofan obviousdeform ity or edem a. Dr. M ierisch recommended that plaintiff tmdergo a right elbow medial epicondylectomy and concurrentulna collaterallignm entreconstruction. A subsequentM RIof plaintiffs right elbow revealed tendinosis of the comm on extedor origin,but no findings to explainthereportedulnar-sidedpain. (Tr.1014). Atthetimeoftheadministrativeheadng on M azch 8,2017,plaintiffhad notyetundergone surgery on hisrightelbow . M r.M archesetestitiedthatthe sm gicalprocedtlrewasscheduledfor the following day. However,the record does not contain any evidence confirm ing that the procedurewasactuallyperform ed. D lzring the adm inistrative'hearing, M r.M archesetestiledthatheattem ptedtolook forless strenuousworkin2012,buthisçGhealthjustwasn'tgoodatal1.'' (Tr.49). W henaskedtoaddress thephysicalactivity described inhismedicalrecords,plaintiffdenied doing work asapainter. As fortheevidenceindicating thathehad previously helped histmclem ove,M r.M archesetestitied thathe tried to help histmcle move a largebox butwasunable to do it. (Tr.54-55). M. r. M archesedeniedbeingabletoeffectivelyusehisrightarm toperform anytypeofwork. (Tr.59). M. 1..M archesealsotestifiedthathehasto1iedownçtallthetime''becauseofpain. (Tr.61). Afterconsidering al1ofthe evidence ofrecord,the Law Judge fotmd thatM r.M archese wasdisabled forallfol'msofsubstantialgainflllactivity from March 1,2012 thisalleged onset date)through September25,2014. The Law Judge'ssnding in thisregard resulted from his detennination thattheplaintiffhad çtno effectiveuse ofhisrighthand forhandling,fngering,or feeling''during thatperiod,butcould othem ise perform lightwork. (Tr.19). Based on the testimony of a vocationalexpert,the Law Judge fotmd thatsuch restrictionsrendered plaintiff tmableto perform lzispastrelevantwork 9om M arch 1,2012 through September25,2014,and thattherewereno otherjobsin the nationaleconomy thatplaintiffwascapableofperfonning withouthaving effectiveuseofhisrighthand. (Tr.23-24). However,asindicatçdabove,the Law Judgedetermined thatM . r.M archese experienced medicalimprovem entasofSeptember26, 2014,which gave rise to a less restrictive residualfunctionalcapacity. Specifcally,the Law Judge determined thét M r.M archese regained the capacity to perform light work with the following restdctions:dçgl-lje can neverbe exposed to hazards like hazardousmachinery and unprotectedheights;occasionallyperform handling,fmgering,andfeelingwith therighthand;and haveoccasionalexposlzretotemperatureextremes,wetness,humidity,and vibrations. (Tr.26). Afterconsideringtheplaintiffscharacteristicsandthetestimony ofthevocationalexpert,theLaw Judgeconcludedthatplaintiffcould notperform any ofllispastrelevantwork,butcould perfonn other work roles existing in signifcant number in the national economy. (Tr. 33-34). Therefore,the Law Judge found thatplaintiffs disability ended on Septem ber26,2014,and that plaintiffhasnotbecomedisabled againsincethatdate. (Tr.34). Onappealtothiscotut plaintiftlthrough cotmsel,makesseveralarplmentsin supportof hismotion for summary judgment. First,Mr.M archese argues thatthe Law Judge erred in fnding m edicalimprovement as of September26,2014. ln deciding whetheran individual's disability conthmesthrough thedate ofhisdecision,the Law Judge Stm ustdetennine ifthere has been anymedicalimprovementin (theclaimant'sqimpairmentts)and,ifso,whetherthismedical improvement is related to Ethe claimant's) ability to work.'' 20 C.F.R. jj 404.1594($, 416.994(*. Medicalimprovementis defned as ççany decrease in the medicalseverity of (a claimant's)impairmentts)which waspresentatthetime ofthemostrecentfavorablemedical decisionthatgtheclaimmltwasldisabled.'' 20C.F.R.jj1594(b),416.994(19. 1çA determination thattherehasbeen adecreaseinm edicalseverity mustbebased on im provem entin thesymptom s, signs,and/orlaboratoryfindingsassociatedwith (theclaimant's)impairments.'' ld. Upon review ofthe record,thecourtconcludes thatthe Law Judge'sfnding ofm edical im provem entissupportedby substantialevidence. Asindicated above,theLaw JudgefoundM r. M archese disabled from the period ofM arch 1,2012 through September25,2014,because his righthand and wristimpairmentswere ofsuch severity thatplaintiffhad çtno effectiveuse ofhis righthandforhandling,fingering,orfeeling.'' (Tr.19). TheLaw Judgedeterminedthatplaintiff could notperform anyjobs in the economy with such limitations. In fnding Mr.M archese disabled forthatperiod,the Law Judgerelied on clinicalsndingsand the plaintifpsallegations with respectto his righthand and wristproblems,which the Law Judge fotmd to be generally consistentwiththeobjectivemedicalevidencethroughSeptember25,2014. (Tr.19). TheLaw Judge also considered theprocedm esM r.M archese tmderwentto treathisrightupperextrem ity impainnentsduring thatperiod,which included fourstzrgerieson hisrighthand andm ist. (Tr. 19-22). The record supportsthe Law Judge's fnding that,following the plaintifps rightthumb stlrgery in M ay of2014,hiscondition gradually improved to the pointthat,by Septem ber26, 2014,theplaintiffcould occasionallyperform handling,Engering,andfeeling with hisrighthand. On thatdate,M r.M archesereported thathe wasççdoing we11,''thathispain wascontrolled with medications,andthathisrangeofmotionhad improved. (Tr.645). On physicalexnmination, the plaintiffwasfollnd to be ttdoing wellpostoperatively.'' (Tr.645). He exhibited lçlgjood opposition''and Rgood motion of the digits,''with only Hminimal discomfort.'' (Tr.645). Additionally,theLaw Judgereasonably observedthatthefactthatplaintiffhelped histmclem ove fess than two m onths laterfurthersupported the conclusion thathe lçhad regained some ofhis abilityto usehisrighthandby thattime,despiteongoingdiftkulties.'' (Tr.26). Although Dr. M ierisch subsequentlynotedin Aprilof2015thatplaintiffwouldttnotbeabletouseEhisjright hand forany heavv mmm allaborin the f'uttlre,''Dr.M ierisch atno pointsuggested thatplaintiff wouldnotbeabletoeffectivelyuseilisrighthandatall. (Tr.894)(emphasisadded). M oreover, severalmonthspassed withoutsignificantm edicaltreatm entforplaintiY srighthand. Itwasnot tmtilM arch of2016 thatplaintiffsaw Dr.M ierisch forrightring fingercatching,which was an entirely new impairment. (Tr.962) CTreatmentto date has been none.''). Even then,M r. M archese continued to exhibitnormalstrength and rangeofmotion in hiswristand fngers,and there are no docllmented com plicationsorcomplaintsoffingerpain following thetdggerfinger releaseprocedureperlbrmed in Octoberof2016. (Tr.964,976,987,996). Forthesereasons, the courtconcludes thatsubstantial evidence supports the Law Judge's finding that plaintiff experienced m edicalim provem entin hisability to use hisdghthand. M r.M archesenextarguesthattheLaw Judgefailedtoproperly considertreatm entrecords related to llis leftshoulder and leftelbow. Upon review ofthe record,however,the courtis tmable to agree. The Law Judge recognized thatM r.M archesew astreated forleftelbow pain 12 (epicondylitis)andleftshoulderimpingementin2015,butdetenninedthatsuchimpairmentswere notsosevereastopreventperlbrm anceofareducedrangeoflightwork. AstheLaw Judgenoted in his decision, plaintiT s Gtleft-sided complaints appear to have responded fairly well to treatment.'' (Tr.31). M r.M archeseEçnoteld)improvementin theelbow pain''afteracortisone injection in Aprilof2015. (Tr.912,922). Althoughplaintiffultimately requiredarthroscopic stlrgery on his left shoulder in Septem ber of 2015, he was fotmd to be Gçdoing well post operatively''and reported thathis pain was ttcontrolled with medications.'' (Tr.942,949). Plaintiffalso reported experiencing slow butsteadyprogresswith hisshoulderpain and range of motion,andhewasfotmdtohaveçsgoodelbow (rangeofmotionq.'' (Tr.942,949). Accordingly, thecourtissatisfied thatsubstantialevidence supportsthe Law Judge'sassessm entofplaintiffs left-sidedimpairments. ThecourtmustalsorejectM r.M rchese'sargtlmentthattheLaw Judgefailedtoproperly considerllis rightelbow impairm ent. The Law Judge recognized thatplaintiffwas diagnosed with rightlateralepicondylitis in 2016,and thathe was scheduled to undergo surgery afterthe administrative hearing. (Tr. However, the Law Judge determined that çGit would be tmreasonably speculativeto makeasstlmptionsabouthispostoperativecourseatthisstage,''since therewasnoevidenceregardingthestlrgeryorplaintiffscondition followingit. (Tr.31). The Law Judge also accm ately noted that a preoperative exnmination of the right elbow showed çtisolated tendem ess and some loss of flexion,butnorm alrange ofm otion otherwise,nonnal circulation and sensation,and no obvious defonnity.'' (Tr.31,1007). Upon review of the record, the couz' t finds no error in the Law Judge's assessm ent of plaintiffs right elbow im pairment. Finally,M r.M archese arguesthatthe Law Judge's fmdings asto hisresidualfnnctional capacity since Seplem ber 26,2014 are not supported by substantial evidence. In particular, plaintiffarguesthattheLaw Judgeerred in failing to include any leftupperextremity limitations orany lim itation on plaintiffs ability to reach. To supportthis argum ent,plaintiffonce again citesto the factthatM r.M archeseunderwentstlrgery on hisleftshoulderand wasscheduled to tmdergo surgery on M srightelbow. However,the m ere factthatstzrgery wasrecom mended or performed doesnotcondusively establish thatplaintiffhad additionalfunctionallim itationsoris othem ise disabled fora11formsofsubstmltialgainflllemployment. Seç Randolph v.Ben hill, No.6:18-cv-1271,2019U.S.Dist.LEXIS31122,at*12(N.D.Ala.Feb.27,2019)C<gTjreatment records revealthatclaim antsuffered from lllmbarand cervicalpain thatrequired three seprate slzrgeries,butthe m ere factthat claim ant...tmderwent surgel' y .. .does notestablish M s disability.''l;Torresv.Comm'rofSoc.Sec-,No.6:13-cv-1687,2015U.S.Dist.LEXIS 25556,at *17 (M .D.Fla.M ar.3,2015)(ççgulndergoing two surgeries,in and ofthemselves,does not establishthatEaclaimant)wasdisabledorhad anyftmctionallimitations.'). Asindicatedabove, M r.M archesewasfound to havelçgoodelbow rangeofmotion''andsteadily progressing range of m otion in his leftshoulderfollow ing the arthroscopic procedure perform ed in Septem berof2015, and he exhibited f'u11range ofm otion in hisrightelbow on Januat' y 31,2017,exceptforslightly . limited flexion. (Tr.949,1007). In determining plaintifpsresidualf'unctionalcapacity as of September26,2014,the Law Judge carefully considered the objective medicalevidence,the plaintiffstreatm entllistory,andDr.M ierisch'sopizlionthatplaintiffcnnnotusehisdghthandfor anyççheavymanuallabor.'' (Tr.894). ThecourtissatisfiedthattheLaw Judge'sassessmentof plaintiffsresidualfunctionalcapacity issupported by substantialevidence. In affinning the Com m issioner's Enal decision, the court does not suggest that M r. M archese is free of a1lpain and discom fort. Indeed,the m edicalrecord confirm s thatplaintiff suffersfrom musculoskeletalimpairmentsthatcanbeexpectedtoresultinsubjectivelimitations. H owever,substantialevidence supports the Law Judge's snding thatplaintiff srightwristand hand symptoms have decreased in severity and no longer cause the disabling lim itations that existed prior to September 26,2014. Although M r.M archese has been diagnosed with and treated foradditionalimpairments sincethatdate,the subsequentmedicalrecordssimply do not include clinical fmdings or objective test results that are consistent with totally disabling symptomatology. lt mustbe recognized that the inability to work without any subjective com plaintsdoesnotofitselfrenderaclaim antdisabled. See Craig v.Chater,76 F.3d 585,592 (4thCir.1996). ltappearstothecourtthattheLaw Judgeconsidereda11ofthemedicalevidence, aswellasa1lofthesubjectivefactorsreasonably supported bytherecord,in adjudicating 11. 1. M archese'sclaim sforbenefks. Thus,the courtconcludesthatallfacetsoftheCom missioner's finaldecision aresupportedby substantialevidence. Asa generalrule,theresolution ofconflictsin theevidenceisam atterwithin theprovince of the Com missioner,even ifthe courtmightresolve the conflicts differently. Richardson v. Perales,402 U.S.at400-01;Craiz,76F.3dat589;Oppenheim v.Finch,495F.2d396,397(4th Cir.1974). Forthereasonsstated,thecotlrtfindstheCommissioner'sresolutionofthepertinent conflictsin therecord inthiscasetobe supportedby substantialevidence. Accordingly,thefinal decision ofthe Com missionerm ustbeaffirmed. The Clerk isdirected to send copiesofthism emorandum opinion to a11counselofrecord. DATED :This ksA day ofSeptember , 2019. >r 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.
