Davis v. Commissioner of Social Securtiy, No. 7:2018cv00242 - Document 30 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 09/26/2019. (aab)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK'S OFFICE U. S.DIST.COURI AT ROANOKE,VA FI LED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT FOR THE W ESTERN DISTRICT OF V IRGN A RO AN OKE D IV ISION sEF 2 ? 2818 JUL c.DUDLEY CLERK BY: TON Y A A .D AV IS, Plaintiff, . DL CiUTY LER CivilA ction N o.7:18CV 00242 M EM OM ND U M O PINIO N M D REW SAU L, Com missionerofSocialSecurity, B y:H on.Glen E.Conrad SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge Defendant. Plaintiffhasfiled tlzisaction challenging thetspaldecision oftheComm issionerofSocial Secm'ity denying plaintiffs claim for supplemental secudty incom e benefits tmderthe Social Secudty Act,asnmended,42 U.S.C.jj 1381-1383f. Jlzrisdiction oftllis courtisestablished pursuantto42U.S.C.j1383(c)(3),wllichincop orates42U.S.C.j405(g). ByorderenieredM arch 11,2019,thecourtreferredthiscasetoaUrlitedStatesM agistrate Judgeptlrsuantto28U.S.C.j636(b)(1)(B). OnAugust6,2019,themagistratejudgesubmitteda reportinwhich herecom m endsthatthecourtaffirm theComm issioner'sfinaldecision. Plaintiff hastiled objectionstothemagistratejudge'sreport,and the matterisnow ripe forthe court's consideration. Thecourtischargedwithperformingaétnovoreview ofthemagistratejudge'sreportand recomm endation. See28U.S.C.j636(b)(1)(B). Intheinstantcase,thecourt'sreview islimited to a determination as to whether there is substantial evidence to supportthe Comm issioner's Davis v. Commissioner of Social Securtiy Doc. 30 conclusion thattheplaintifffailed to meetthe requirementsforentitlem entto benefitstmderthe A ct. Ifsuch substantialevidence exists,the finaldecision ofthe Com m issionerm ustbeaffirm ed. Haysv.Sullivan,907F.2d1453,1456(4thCir.1990);Lawsv.Celebrezze,368F.2d640,642(4th Cir.1966). Stated briefly,substantialevidence has been defined as such relevantevidence, Dockets.Justia.com considering the record asa whole,as m ightbe found adequate to supporta conclusion by a reasonablemind. Richardson v.Perales,402U.S.389,401(1971). Gûltconsistsofmorethan a m ere scintillaofevidence butm ay belessthan apreponderance.'' Hancock v.Astrue,667 F.3d 470,472(4thCir.2012)(internalquotationmarksandcitationomitted). Thus,ttthethresholdfor such evidentiarysufficiencyisnothigh.'' Biestekv.Berryllill,139S.Ct.1148,1154(2019). Theplaintiff,Tonya Davis,wasborn on Novem ber 14,1972. She çventually graduated from lligh school. M s.Davishaspreviously worked asastorelaborerand mobilehome installer. (Tr.62,80-81). Shelastworked onaregularand sustainedbasisin 2007. (Tr.62,233). On M ay 7,2014,M s.Davistsled an application forsupplementalsectlrity incom ebenefits. In ûling hercurrentclaim ,M s.Davisalleged thatshebecam edisabled fora11formsofsubstantialgainful employm enton M ay 1,2007,duetolower' back pain,nllmbnessand tinglinginherrightleg,pain and swelling in herrightfoot,all-overbody pain,swelling in both legs,osteoarthritis in both knees,headaches,neck pain,hepatitisC,anxiety,asthma,chronicobstructivepulmonarydisorder (COPD),andemphysema. (Tr.244-45). Atthetimeofanadministrativehearingon M ay 10, 2017 pla 'intiffnm endedherapplication so asto rdflectan alleged disability onsetdate ofM ay 7, 2014. (Tr.58). M s.Davisnow maintainsthatshehasremaineddisabledtothepresenttime. M s.Davis'application was derlied upon initialconsideration and reconsideration. She then requested and received a #qnovoheadng andreview beforean AdministrativeLaw Judge. . ln an opinion dated August10,2017,theLaw Judge also determined,afterapplying thefve-step sequentia1evaluation process,thatMs.Davisisnotdisabled. See 20 C.F.R.j 416.920.1 The lTheprocessrequirestheLaw Judgeto consider,in sequence,whetheraclaimant:(1)isengagedin substantialgainflllactivity;(2)hasa severe impairment;(3)hasan impairmentthatmeets orequals the requirementsofa listèd impairment;(4)can rettlrntoherpastrelevantwork;and(5)ifnot,whethershecan perform otherwork inthenationaleconomy. 20C.F.R.j416.920. lfadecisioncanbereachedatanystepin thesequentialevaluation process,f' urtheèevaluation isunnecessmy 1d. Law JudgefotmdthatM s.Davissuffersf' rom severalsevereim pairm ents,including osteoartluitis, obesity,back pain,ventralhem ia,headaches,COPD,sleep apnea,and hepatisC,butthatthese im painnents do not, either individually or in combination, meet or medically equAl the reqttiteménts ofa listeè impairment. (Tr.42-44). The Law Judge then assessed Ms.Davis' . residualfunctionalcapacity asfollows: After càrefulconsideration ofthe entire record,the tmdersigned finds that the claim ant has the residual flm ctional capacity to perlbrm lesstharla fullrange oflightwork asdefned in 20 C.F.R. (j)416.967(19. Shecan occasionally stoop,kneel,croqch,crawl, push/pullwith her lower extrem ities,and climb ladders,rnmps, ropes,scaflblds,and stairs. l (Tr.46). Given such a residualftmctionalcapacity,and after considering testimony from a vocAtionalexpert,the Law Judge deteymined thatM s.Davisisunable tp perform any ofherpast relevantwork. (Tr.49). Howevrr,the Law Judge found thatM s.Davis retains sufficient flmctional capacity to perform otherwork roles existing in significantmlmber in the national economy. (Tr.49-50). Accordingly,theLaw Judgeconcluded thatM s.Davisisnotdisabled, and thatshe isnoteniitled to supplem entalsecurity incom e benests. See cenerally 20 C.F.R. j416.920(g). TheLaw Judge'sopinion wasadopted asthefinaldecision oftheCommissioner by the Social Security Adm inistration's Appeals Council. Having exhausted al1 available administrativerem edies,M s.Davishasnow appealed tothiscourt. W hile plaintiff m ay be disabled for certain form s of employm ent,the cnlcial facttzal detennination is whdher plaintiffis disabled for allforms ofsubstantialgainfulemployment. See42U.S.C.j 1382c(a). Therearefourelem entsofproofwhich m ustbeconsidered in maldng such an analysis. These elementsare sllmmarized asfollows:(1)objective medicalfactsand clinicalfndings;(2)theopinionsandconclusionsoftreatingphysicians;(3jsubjectiveevidence ofphysicalmanifestatlonsofimpairments,asdescribedthrough aclaimant'stestimony;and (4) the claimant's education,vocationalhistory,residualskills,and age. Vitek v.Finch,438 F.2d 1157,1159-60(4thCir.1971);Underwoodv.Ribicofll298F.2d 850,851(4th Cir.1962). Aspreviously noted,thecourtreferredthecasetoamagistratejudgeforareportsetting forth findings offact,conclusions oflaw,and a recomm ended disposition. In his report,the magistrate judge recommended thatthe courtaffinn the finaldecisipn of the Commissioner denying the plaintiffs claim forsupplem entalsecurity incom e benefks. Succinctly stated,the magistratejudgedetee inedthatsubstantialevidencesupportstheLaw Judge'stindingthatM s. Davisretainstheresidualfunctionalcapacity to perform certain lightwork rolesand istherefore notdisabled tmderthe SocialSectlrity Act. In her objections to the rçportand recommendation,M s.Davis takes issue with the magistratejudge'sfindings and conclusionsasto three ofthe issuesraised in hermotion for summary judgment. The first issue is whether the Law Judge's assessment of plaintiff's subjectiveallegationsissupportedbysubstantialevidence. Relyingon thedecision oftheUnited StatesCourtofAppealsfortheFourthCircuitinBrownv.Commissioner,873F.3d251,269(4th Cir.2017),M s.DavisarguesthattlieLaw Judgedidnotbuildan accmateandlogicalbridgefrom theevidencetollisconclusionthathertestimonyandsubjectivecomplaintswerenotcredible. Uponreview oftherecord,thecourtagreeswiththemagistratejudgethattheLaw Judge's assessmentofplaintiffssubjective allegationsissupported by substantialevidence. Although M s.Davistestified atthe adm inistrative heming thatshe experiencestotally disabling neck and back pain,ntlmbness,joint swelling,and shortnessof breath,the Law Judge fotmd thatthe plaintiffs statem ents regarding the intensity,persistence,and lim iting effects of her sym ptom s k werenotentirelyconsistentwiththemedlcalevidenceandotherevidenceintherecord. (Tr.47). 4 The Law Judge then discussed his reasoning for not fully crediting the plaintiffs statements ' . . ' regatdingthesevedtyofhersymptoms. TheLaw Judgebeganbyoutliningtheobjectivemedical findingsf' rom exnm inationsin 2015,during which M s.Davishad som etendem essin herhands, diffllsemuscfetenderness,pndlimitedrangeofmotion in hershoulder,butotherwisedisplayed normalgrip strength,normalstrength in herupperand lowerextremities,normalspinalrangeof motionsno swellingorsynovitisinherjoints,and goodrangeofmotion in eachjoint. (Tr.47). The Law Judgenoted thatwhen plaintiffdevelopedjointstiffnessand edema in hernnkles,it lEresolvedratherquickly.'' (Tr.47). ByAugustof2015,plaintiffççozllydisplayedbackandright ankletçnberness(andjotherwisehadagoodrangeofmotionineachjôintandanegativestraight ' leg-raisingtest.'' (Tr.47). TheLaw Judgealsonoted thatplaintiY sçtprovidersreferred herto gphysic'altherapyj,butsheonlyattendedtheinitialevaluation,suggestinghersymptomswerenot assevereoraslimitingasalleged.'' (Tr.47). The Law Judg 'e then outlined subsequentm edicalexnm inations relevantto M s.Davis' com plaints ofback pain. On O çtober 29,2015,plaintifftm derwenta llzm bar spine evaluation at Cadlion Ulilzic.'buringtheevaluation,Ms.Daviswasfound to have sometendernessinthe lumbarregion,pain with flexion and extension,and an antalgic gaitççdue to body habitus.'' 458). Howevey,thefindingsonphysicalexnminationwereotlkerwiseImremarkable. M s.Davis ' . . ' exhibited a balanced standingposture,no diffculty with transitionalm ovem ents,intactsensation, norm al'reflexes, and intactmbtorftmction exceptfora slightdecrease in the rightgastro-soleous . . ' comp1ex secondm'y to nnkle pain from a recent sprain. (Tr.458). Dtuing subsequent exnm inations in Decep ber.of 2015 and M arch of 2016,M s.Davis exhibited nonnalrange of motion in a1lextremities and no evidenceoftendemessoredema. (Tr.522,527). The Law Judge accurately observed that cèrtain records indicate that M s. D avis çiexperienced som e regression dttringtheneKtseveralm onths,''prim arily in the fonn ofççtenderness,rangeofm otion deticits,andepisodicmusclespasms.''z (Tr.47). However,relevantdiagnosticstudiesrevealed no significant abnorm alities. An M RI of plaintiffs lumbar spine revealed a ççminimal bröad-baseddiscprotrusionatL5-S1.'' (Tr.614,765). Similarly,anMltlofplaintiffscervical spinerevealedonlyççlmqildspondylotic/discogenicchangesy''includingçGsomefornminalstenosis'' from a :1C5/6 disc bulge-'' (Tr'757)..W hen M s.Davis retumed to Cadlion CliniNc for a . Stlllmbar/cervicalspinerecheck''inAprilof2017,afterreceivinganepiduralsteroidinjection,she wasfound to havenormalm otorflmction,nonnalmuscle tone,well-perfused extrem ities,intact sensation,normalreflexesin allextremities,alïd no sensory detkitsorsustained clonus. (Tr. 657.-61). Theexaminingphysician advised theplaintiffto begin doing exercisesathome. He alsonotedthatsc gerymaybeanoptionifhersymptomspersist,butthatçGltlherapyandcontinued painmanagementare(thejpreferredtreatmentEoptionsl.'' (Tr.661). W ith respecttoplaintiff'srespiratory conditions',theLaw Judgenoted thatwhileplaintiff canied diagnoses of COPD and sleep apnea,pulm onary flmction testing in January of 2015 revealed noobstnzctivelung defect,and chestx-raysin February of2015 showed clearlungsqnd no signs of pneumothorax orpleuraleffllsion. (Tr.48,353,391). Additionally,multiple treatmentrecordsreflectnormalbreath sotmdsand/ornosignsofrespiratorydistress. (Tr.412, 415,419,420,422,423,$20,521,527). TheLaw Judgeaccurately observedthatalthoughM s. Dakis çsexperienceld) several exacerbations dudng the period tmder adjudication, mostly associated with bronchitisoranupperrespiratoly irlfection,...shealwaysquicklyreturnedto baselinewithconservativetreatmeùt.'' (Tr.48). 2Thecourtnotesthatotherrecordsreflectcontrary findings. Foriristance,in Augustof2016,when plaintiffunderwentasuccessfulventralhelmiarepair,areview ofsystemsrevealedStgnqoback pain,jointpain, jointswelling,claudication,spmsm,wenkness,stiffness,arthritis,...nmnbness,(or)...headachey''and plaintiff'sextremitieswerenotedtobeçsnonual.'' (Tr.597). TheLaw JudgealsonotedthatM s.Davisreported engagingin activitiesofdaily livingthat were not entirely consistentwith complaints of disabling limitations. For instance,plaintiff s flmction reportsindicatethatplaintiffpreparessimplem ealsonadaily basis,sitsoutsideeach day, shopsforgroceries,handlesfinancialm atters,watchestelevision and movies,visitsfnm ily,and is capableofgoingoutalone. (Tr.253-57). Upon review ofthe record,the courtis tmable to discem any errorin the Law Judge's credibility findings. Unlike Brown,the Law Judge considered plaintiffsm edicalhistory along with herown allegationsregarding thesym ptom sofherphysicalimpairments. The courtagrees that plaintiffs allegations of totally disabling symptoms are somewhat inconsistent with the objectivefndingsonexnmination,theplaintiff'streatmenthistory,andherreportedactivitiesof % . daily living. M thoughtheLaw Judgemay notdisregard ççthelimited extent''ofthedaily living . ' , activities describçd by a plaintiff,Brown,873 F.3d at269,itisappropriate fora Law Judge to considerwhethercomplaintsofpain and otherdisabling limitationsare consistentwith evidence * . regardingtheplaintifrsroutine,non-work activlties. SeeJolmsonv.Bnrnhart,434F.3d 650,652 (4thCir.2005)(holdingthattheLaw Judgelogicallyreasonedthattheabilitytoengageincertain activitieswasinconsistentwith the plaintiY sallegationsofexcnlciating pain and an inability to perfonnsuchregularmovementsassittingandwallcing). Ultimately,itistheprovinceoftheLaw Judge to m ake credibility detenninations and to resolve inconsistencies or conflicts in the evidence. See LIJ .SCtln reviewing for substantialevidence,we do not undertalce to reweigh conflicting evidence,makecredibilitydeterminations,orsubstimteourjudgmentforthatofthe . . ' (ALJ).'')(alterationin original)(intçrnalquotationmarksomitted). lntheinstantcase,thecourt is satisfied that substantial evidence'supports the Law Judge's decision not to fully credit the plaintiffstestimony. Accordingly,theplaintiffsfirstobjectionisovem zled. Inhersecondobjection,theplaintiffarguesthatthemagistratejudgeen'ed in concluding thatsubstantialevidencesupportstheLaw Judge'sassessmentoftheplaintiY sresidualfnnctional . ' capacity (çûlkFC''). M s.Davis contends thatthe Law Judge failed to properly consider her im painnentson a function-by-function basis. In particular,M s.Davism aintainsthatthe Law Judèe failed to m ake suffk ientsndingsregarding heralleged inability to m aintain a static work postureorherallegedneed forunscheduledbreaksand absences. M s.Davisalsoarguesthatthe Law Judgeerred in failingto include any environm entallimitationsin theRFC determination. Upon review ofthe record and applicable caselaw ,the courtagrees with the m agistrate judgethattheLaw Judge'sassessmentofplaintiffsresidualfunctionalcapacity issupportedby substantialevidence. Although guidelinesfrom the SocialSecmity Adm inistration instructthe Law Judge to take a Gçfunction-by-flmction''approach to determ ining a claim ant's residual ftmctionalcapacity,SSR 96-8p,1996 SSR LEXIS 5,the United States CourtofAppealsforthe Fourth Circuithasçtrejected aperserulerequiring remand when the AL1doesnotperfonn an explicitfunction-by-function analysis.'' M ascio v.Colvin,780 F.3d 632,635 (4th Cir.2015). Instead,theCourtagreedw1t11theSecondCircuitthatGçtlrjemandmaybeappropriate...wherean ALJ fails to assess a claimant's capacity to perfonn relevant functions, despite contradictory evidence in the record,orwhere otherinadequaciesin the ALJ'Sanalysisfrustrate menningful review.''' Id.(quotingCichoclciv.Astrue,729F.3d 172,177(2dCir.2013)). In thiscase,itisclearfrom theLaw Judge'sdecision thathe considered al1ofM s.Davis' claim ed lim itations,including those described during the adm irlistrative hearing,but folm d that such lim itations w ere inconsistent w ith the indings on physical exnm ination,the conservative natureofthetreatmentprovided,and otherevidenceofrecord. See.e.:.,Sharp v.Colvin,660 F. App'x 251,259'(4th'Cir.2016) (ai-finning the Law Judge'sdetermination thatthe plain'tiffs medicaltreatment,which included injections,pain medication,and physical therapy,ttwas conservative,and thathercotlrseoftreatm entsupported aconclusion thatshewasabletom aintain aroutinework schedule''). The Law Judgeexpressly noted thatplaintiff'sççnegative findings, limitedtreatmentprotocol,smokinghabit,and retained abilities(toperform variousactivitiesof daily living) suggest she requires no greater limitations''than those included in the RFC assessment. (Tr.48). The Law Judge also emphasized thathisRFC findings were largely supported by theopinionsofDr.W illinm Humphries,who perform ed a consultativeexnm ination on Decem ber 12,2014,and the opirlionsofthenon-exnmining state agency physicians,Dr.Luc Vinh andDr.Richard Sum zsco,each ofwhom opinedthatplaintiffsphysicalproblem sarenotso severeastopreventperformanceofalimitedrangeoflightwork activity. (Tr.48). M though Dr.Hllmphriesalsorecommendedthatplaintiffavoidheigàts,hazards,and fllmes(Tr.344),the Law Judgeultim ately determined,asdid Dr.Vizlh and Dr.Sum zsco,thatplaintiffdoesnotreqlzire any environmentallimitations. (Tr.48,102,114). Instèad,theLaw Judgefound thatlimiting plaintiffto lightwork with posturallimitationswould appropriately accountforplaintifpsCOPD and any asjociated shortnesj ofbreath. (Tr.48). Upon review ofthe record,the courtis convinced thatthe Law Judge'streatm entofplaintiffsclaimed limitationsis consistentwith the protocolestablished in M ascio and M onroev.Colvin,826 F.3d 176 (4th Cir.2016),and that substantialevidence supports the Law Judge's evaluation of M s.Davis's residual functional tapacity. Accordingly,theplaintiffssecondobjection isovemzled. In hertlaird alid finalobjection,the plaintiff argues thatthe magistratejudge erred in concluding thatthe Law Judge properly considered the effects ofherobesity. Guidelines from the SocialSecudty A dm ii stration recogzlize thatobesity Gçcan cause lim itation offunction,''and thatan çtassessmentshould ...be m ade ofthe effectobesity hasupon the individual'sability to perlbrm routine movem entand necessary physicalactivity within the work environm ent''asthe ççcom bined effects of obesity with other im pairm ents m ay be g' reater than m ightbe expected withoutobesity.'' SSRNO.02-01p,2002SSR LEXIS 1(Sept.12,2002). However,obesitydoes notautom atically ççincrease the severity orf' unctionallimitations''ofotherimpainnents,1d.,and ççthe Law Judge need notGinclude a lengthy analysis,orindeed,any precise analysisregarding . . ' obesity.''' Rowlettv.Berryhill,No.7:17-cy-00070,2018U.S.Dist.LEXIS 10059,at*10(W .D. Va.Jan22,2018)(quotinglkichardsv.Astrtle,No.6:11-cv-00017,2012U.S.Dist.LEXIS92594, at*18(W .D.Va.July 5,2012)). In thiscase,itisclear9om theLaw Judge'sdecision thatheconsidered plaintiffsobesity in detenniningherresidualfunctionalcapacity. TheLaw Judgelistedplaintiffsobesity asoneof severalfactàrshecbnsideredinlimitingplaintiffto areducedrangeoflightwork,and heexpressly notedthatplaintiY sççobesebodyhabitus''restrictsGtherabilitytobend andlif1.'' (Tr.48). The Law Judge's assessm ent ofplaintiff s obesity is consistent with that of Dr.Htlm phdes,who detenninedthatthecom bined effectsofplaintiff sobesity andotherimpairm entsdo notrenderher disabled orothem ise resultin any additionalexertionalorposturallimitations otherthan those fotmdbytheLaw Judge. (Tr.344). Forthesereasons,the courtconcludesthattheLaw Judge properly considered the im pact of plaintifps obesity in detennining her residual ilnctional capacity,andthatsubstantialevidencesupportstheLaw Judge'sfindingthatthisimpainnentdoes notpreventherfrom peribrm 'ingalimitedrangeoflightwork. Consequently,thecourtmust ovezruletheplaintifrsûnalobjection. ln sllm,afteraétnovoreview oftherecordandforthereasonssetforthabove,thecourtis constrained to conclude thatthe final decision of the Com m issioner is supported by substantial evidence. Accordlngty,theplgintiffsobjectionstothemagistratejudge'sreportareovem lled, 10 the magistrate judge's recommendation will be adopted, and the final decision of the Comm issionerwillbeaffirmed. TheClerk isdirectedto sendcertified copiesofthismem orandum opinionto a11colmselof record. % o A TED :This AZ day ofseptember, 2019. SeniorU nited States DistrictJudge
]]>
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.
