Meredith v. Berryhill, No. 7:2018cv00243 - Document 24 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 09/30/2019. (aab)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK'SOFFICE U.s.DISX CouR'r ATROANOKE,VA FILED ï1 IN T H E U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT CO U RT FO R TH E W E STE RN D ISTRICT O F W RGIN IA ROAN O K E D IW SIO N SE-F 32 2218 JLJLI UDLEY LERK eY: . -i ' C ROBERTA M .2 lalédtltiff V. CivilAction N o.7:18-CV-243 AN D REW SAU L, Com m issionerofSocialSecurityy By:H on.M ichaelF.U rbansld ClliefUnited StatesDistrictJudge D efendant M EM ORAN D U M O PIN ION PlaindffRobertaM.tffRobel'ta''lhasftled thisaction challengingtheSnaldecision of theCom m issionerofSocialSecurityin denp'ng herclnim foraperiod ofDisability lnsutance Benefhs (<fDlB'')under the SocialSecurity Act,42 U.S.C.jj 401-433.In hermodon for s'Ammaty judgment,ECF No.14,Robertaarguesthatthe administrative1aw judge (<TAI, J'') erred by failing to properly analyzeevidence from hertreaéng physician and thattheAppeals Councilerred when itdeclined to consideraddidonalevidenceshe subrnited afterthehenring. TheCommissionertespondedin hisownmodon fotsummaty judgment,ECF No.19,that substantialevidence supports the denialof disability benefitsand that the Appeals Council properly declined to considertheaddidonalevidence. Meredith v. Berryhill Doc. 24 1D ueto privacy concerns,the courtadoptstherecomm endadon ofthe Comm itteeon CourtAdministradon andCaseManagementoftheJudicialConferenceoftheUnitedstatesthatcottrtsuseonlytheftrstnameand lajtinitialoftheclnim antin socialsecurity opinions. 1 Dockets.Justia.com A scliscussed m ore fully the below,the courtSndsthatsubstandalevidence doesnot suppottthe ATJ'sdeterminadon to accord littleweightto theopinion ofRoberta'streating physician on the effects of her im pairm ents.The coutt further finds that the addidonal evidence was propetly excluded by theA ppeals Council.A ccordingly,Roberta's m otion for sllmmaryjudgmentisGRANTED;theCommissioner'smodon forsllmmaryjudgmentis DEN IED;the M J'S detetm ination is VACATED,and this case is RRM AN DED for fhlttherconsidetaéon consistentwith thisopinion. 1.JudicialReview ofSocialSecurityD eterm inations Itis notthe province of a federalcourt to m ake aclm inisttadve disabl 'lity decisions. Rather,judicialreview ofdisabilitycasesislimitedtodete= iningwhethersubstandalevidence suppottstheCom m issioner'sconclusion thattheplnindfffailed to m eetllisburden ofproving disability.See Ha s v.S'Allivan,907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir.1990);see also Laws v. Celebrezze,368F.2d640,642(4thCir.1966).In sodoing,thecourtmayneitherundertakea 7-. :novo teview oftheCommissioner'sdecision norre-weigh theevidenceofrecord.Hunter v.Slzllivan,993 F.2d 31,34 (4th Cit.1992).Evidenceissubstanéalwhen,considering the record asawhole,itmightbedeem ed adequate to supportaconclusion by areasonablem ind, ltichardson v.Perales,402 U.S.389,401(1971),orwhen itwould be suffcientto z' efuse a ditectedverdictinajurytdal.Smithv.Chater,99F.3d635,638(4th Cir.1996). Substandalevidence is nota Tflarge ot considerable am ount of evidencey''Pierce v. Underwood,487U.S.552,565 (1988),butismotethan amerescindllaand somewhatless than aprepondetance.Perales,402 U .S.at401;Laws,368 F.2d at642.ffltm eans- and m eans 2 only- fsuch relevantevidence as a reasonable m ind m ightacceptas adequate to support a conclusion.'''Biestekv.Ber hill,139S.Ct.1148,1154 (2019)(quodngConsolidatedEdison Co.v.NLILB,305 U.S.197,229 (1938)).lfthe Commissioner'sdecision is suppotted by substandalevidence,itmustbeaffltmed.42 U.S.C.j405(g);Perales,402U.S.at401. Nevvrtheless,remand isappropriatewhen the AT, J'Sanalysisisso defcientthatit fffrustratels)meaningfulreviem ''Mascio v.Colvin,780 F.3d 632,636-637 (4th Cit.2015) (notingthatffremandisnecessary''becausethecourtisKfleftto guessgat)how the ATJarrived athisconclusions7).SeealsoM onroev.Colvin,826F.3d176,189(4thCir.2016)(emphasizing thattheAT, JmustTfbuild an accuzateandlogicalbridgefrom theevidenceto lnisconclusion'' and holcling thatremand wasapptopriatewhen the ATJ , failed to make Tfspecific fmdings'' aboutw hetherthe cbim ant'slim itadonswould cause him to expedence hisclnim ed sym ptom s d'Aringwork andifso,how often)(citadon omitted). II.(rlairn llistory Robertawasbozn on December2,1963 and graduated ftom hkh school.R.53.Her pastrelevantworkincludesbeing acbildcareozdaycareworkerandwozldngasageneralm otor vehicleassem bler.R.76.Roberta flled an applicadon fotD 1B on August21,2014,alleging an onsetdate ofO ctober9,2013.R.17.Shewaslastinsuted forputposesofD IB on D ecem ber 31,2014,giving het a narrow window in w lùch to establish her clisability- ftom O ctober 9, 2013 thtough D ecem ber31,2014. Roberta alleged disability based on systemic lupus erythem atosus and scleroderm a, Sjogren's syndrome, Rrynaud's phenomenon, fibromyalgia, impingement of the right 3 shouldet-failed surgicalrepair,depression,anxiety,panicattacks,m igraineheadaches,chronic fatigue,and atthtitisin hernt-m s,hands,llips,knees,wrists,andelbow s.R.271.Theapplicadon wasdenied attheinidaland zeconsideradon levelsofreview .R.113-117,122-128.O n April 11,2017,AT, JGetaldineH.PageheldahearingtoconsiderRoberta'scbim forDIB.Roberta wasrepresented by counseland avocadonalexpet'talso teséfied.R.51-82. OnJuly 19,2017theAIJrendered an opinion fmding Robertanotdisabled,applying the hve-step evaluaéon processdesczibedin thetegulaéons.zR.17-27.The ATJ ftrstfound thatRobettalastm ettheinsured stat'usrequirem entson D ecem ber31,2014 and thatshehad notengagedin substantialgainfuiacévityduringthepetiod ftom hetalleged onsetdateof October9,2013throughDecembet31,2014.TheAT, Jfuttherfound thatRobertahad the following severe impaitvnents--right shoulder degeneradve joint disease; lmnbosacral degenerative clisc disease;history of I J 'I. N to tlae bilateral knees,mixed connecdve dssue disease(<<MCTD'')(includingfeattzresofsclerode- a,lupus,Sjogren'ssyndrome,Reynaud's 2TheA1, Jmakesaseriesofdeterminadons:(1)Whetherthecbimantisengageditzsubstantialgainfulacdvity; (2)WhetherthecllimanthasamedicallydeterminableimpnitmentthatisRsevere''underthereguladons;(3) W hetherthesevereimpnif-mentorcombitzadon ofimm irm entsm eetsorm edically equalsthecriteria ofa listedimpairment;(4)Whetherthecllimanthastheresidualfbmctionalcapacity(<%FC'')toperform hispast relevantwork;and(5)Whetherthecllimantisabletodoany.otherworkinthenationaleconomy, consideringhisILFC,age,education,andworkexperience.20C.F. R.jj404.1520(a)and416.920(a).lfthe ATJfmdsthatthecbimanthasbeen engagedin substandalgainf'ulacdvityatStep 1,orfindsthatthe impairmentsarenotsevere atStep 2,theprocessendswith afm cling ofT'notdisabled.''LdaAtStep 3,ifthe A1, Jfindsthattheclnimant'simplirmentsmeetorequalalistedimpaitment,thecbimantwillbefound disabled.Ldxat635.IftheanalysisptoceedstoStep 4?nd theATJdetetminesthednimant'sRFC willallow him toretarntohispastrelevantworkatheclnimant4illbefoundRnotdisabled.''Iftheclqimantcannot rettuntohispastrelevantwotk,theATJthendetermines,often based on testimonyftom avocadonalexpert, whetherothe, rworkexistsforthecbimantitlthenadonaleconomy.J-d. aat635.Thecloimantbearsthebttrden ofproofon the Ftrstthree stepsand thebtuden shiftsto theCom missioneron thefifth step.M asciov. Colvitz,780F.3d632,634-635(4thCir.2015). 4 syndrome,arthralgias,andsicca),andinflammatoryarthrids-butthatnoneoftheimpnitments orcom bination ofim pai= entsm etorm edically equaled the severityofalisted im pnitm ent. TheATJthen foundthatRobertahadtheresidualfuncdonalcapacityr<11FC'')todo lightwork with addidonallim itationsofpushing and plzlling occasionallywith therightupper extrem ity and the bilatezallower exttelnides;could never crawl;w ould need to avoid all exposure to hazardousm achinery;and could notw ork atunprotected heights,clim b ladders, topes,ot scaffolds,or work on vibrae g surfaces.She could occasionally clim b ram ps and staits,balance,kneel,stoop,and crouch.She could frequently handle,feel,and fingerw1t. 1,1the bilateralhandsandcouldoccasionallyreach overheadwit. h herHghtshoulder.TheATJ found thatRobertacould notreturn to her pastrelevantwork,butcould do othetwork thatexists in thenationaleconomy.Based on testimony by thevocaéonalexpett,the AT, J found that Robertacotlld do work such asthatofa cafeteria attendant,dckettaker,orcashier II.R.1727. 111.Evidence A .M edicalRecords In February 2014 Robertareported to herhealth careprovidetthatfortheprevioussix m onthsshehad been having softéssuepain and swelling alongwith difficultyusing herhands forfmemotorslrills.Shealso had pnin in herknee,hip,and elbow joints.Shereported a history of nodtzlarity in both hands,w llich usually w as wotse in the m ozning and caused decreased m obility and pain. R. 658. X-rays of her feet showed that she had bilateral osteototniesitw olving thedistalfrontm etatarsalsand had orthopedichardwarein the form of two sm allcozdcalsctew swith no evidence of hardwate failure ot loosening.She also had nninimalosteonrthdésinvolving130th flrstM'I'P joints.R.544.X-raysofherhandsshowed nlinim alpetiorticula. rosteopenia.R.545. AN A testing was positive and she w as referred to Edw ard Tackey, M .D ., a theum atologist,who diagnosed hetwith inflam m atory atthtitis,posidveAN A,and Raynaud phenom enon.R.557.In M arch 2014Robertarepomedachesand pznsshedescribed as7/10, worse with acdvity and betterwith rest.Herwristsand hand jointswere tender.She also reported shortness of breath. D r. Tackey diagnosed Robezta with Lupus, Raynaud phenom enon,and Sicca syndtom e.R.554. Robertabegan to seerheumatologistJoseph Lemmer,M .D.,in June2014,repotqing generalized m oderate wotsening pain,pnf-ficularly in her low er legs,feet,foreatm s,hands, chest,and back.She had generalized puffinessin thehand,Reynaud phenom enon,drynessof the eyes and m outh,poot sleep,fadgue,and anxietp Dr.Lem m et assessed Roberta with overlapping connecdve dssue disease wit.h features oflupus,scletode= a,and Sjogren syndrom e,m anifested by arthralgias,puffyhands,Reynaudphenom enon,dry eyesand m outh, and posidve anécarcliolipin antibodies; pleudtic type chest pain, possibly related to the connective dssue disease,dysesthesiaofthe feetwith possibleperipheralneuropathy,possibly telated to theconnectivedssuedisease;generalizedm yalgiasand atthralgiaswith tenderpoints consistent with fibtom yalgia syndtom e;sleep distutbance and fatigue,ptobably associated with chronic pain syndrom e; shottness of breath, possibly psychophysiological; and hypetlipidemia.R.552.A plllm onary f'uncdon sm dyw asnorm al.R.548. 6 Roberta saw D r.Lem m eragain in Septem ber2014,and he noted thatshew asm ildly sym ptom aéc,butunstable.ln addition to hispreviousassessm ent,he noted thatherpleudsy had im proved buther fibrom yalgia syndrom e,sleep dism rbance,and fatigue syndrom e had worsened.She also had nausea,possibly caused by hezm edicadons.R.546. In N pvem ber2014,D r.Lemm erdescribed Robertaassym ptom atically stablewithout signsofsignihcantend-organ disease,with anorm alechocardiogtam and pulm onary fazncéon test.R.622.H e com m ented thathergçneralized m yalgias,atthtalgias,and tenderpointswere w orsening,consistentwith Ebrom yalgia syndtom e,wllich hedescdbed ashetffcurrentlym ain Problem .'?R .22. O n April 15, 2015, Dr. Lem m et com pleted a queséonnaite tegatding Roberta's lim itadons related to fibtom yalgia and chronic fadgue syndtom e,with the notation thather lim itaéonj related back to October 9,2013.H e com m ented thatRoberta m etthe Am erican College of lthellm atology cdteria for hbrom yalgia and that she also had undifferenéated connective tissuedisease.H erprognosiswasguarded.R.670. D t.Lem m eridendfied Roberta's sym ptom s asm ultiple tendetpoints,nontestoradve sleep,chronicfadgue,morningstiffness,muscleweakness,subjecdveswelling,irritablebowel . syndrom e, ftequent severe headaches, fem ale urethtal syndzom e, vesdbular dysflxncdon, nlzm bnessand tingling,Sicca sym ptom s,Raynaud'sPhenom enon,anxiety,panic attacks,and depression.H eopined thatherpain and othetsym ptom swould frequently interferewith her atiendon and concentradon dtuing the workday.H e stated thatshe could sitforaboutfour hoursper day and stand and w alk lessthan two hours.She could occasionally liftten pounds 7 and rarely lifttwenty pounds.She could rately twist,stoop,ctouch,clim b laddetsorstaitsand had signihcantlim itationsdoing repedtivereaching,handling orûngering.R.670-671. She had unexplained persistentot relapsing chtonic faégue ofnew ot definite onset thatresulted it' l substandalreduction in her previous levels of activity.She also had self- reported im pni= entsin het short-term m em ory ot concenttaéon severe enough to cause a substantialreducdon in herpreviousacdvity levels.D r.Lem m er also noted thatRoberta had musclepnitn,muldplejointpain withoutsweltingorredness,headachesofanew type,pattern or severity,unrefreshing sleep, and post-exertional m alaise lasting m ore than twenty-four hours.R.671-672. H erim pni= entsw ere likely to produce good daysand bad daysand she waslikely to m issm ore tl aan fourdaysperm onth ofwork.Dr.Lem m etsaid herlim itadonswotlld include no repetidve use ofhet lim bs,no repeddve benfling or lifting,no lifdng ofm ore than ten pounds,and no work in a cold ordam p envitonm ent.She ftequently would be absentfrom work.R.672-673. Roberta continued to see Dr.Lem m et aftether date lastinslzred.In April2015 she repotted w orsening pain in herllips,buttocks,elbows,and head.H etdty eyesand dry m outh sym ptom s were m inim al to none. H e recom m ended m assage, heat, stretching, stress m anagem ent,and im proved sleep.R.735-736.A n X -ray ofherlum bar spine in Septem ber 2015showed sm allhypertropllicsputsatallltunbardisc spaces,butthediscspacesthem selves w erewellm aintnined.Thereportnoted fdprobàble patavettebralm uscle spasm .''R.738. 8 ln Apdl2016 Robertareported tem porary and partialimprovem entin pain,swelling, and sdffnessofthehngerjointswith a prednisone taper,generalized aching in therib cage, back,elbows,shoulders,wrists,and feet.She had pufhnessin her hands.She also reported varying am ounts ofpain in the rightsciatica area asm ild to m odezate.R.729.D r.Lem m er assessed hez wit. h undifferenéated connecdve éssue disease, Ebrom yalgia, right lum bar radiculopathy,and a sleep disordet.R.730-731.ln July 2016Roberta'schiefcomplaintwas bilatetalwtistpnin.She also had ttouble m oving hetrightthtzm b and lifting and gripping.She had littlepain otherthan generalized myakiasand on-offrightsciaécapnin.Dr.Lemmet com m ented thatRoberta presented with a form ofsclerodezm atous-like disorderm anifested by m ild dghtnessoftheskin on herhandsandRaynaud'sphenom enon.H erproblem appeared to be stableto slowly progressive.R.726-* 728. B .H eating Testim ony Atthe hearing,Roberta teséfied thatprior to her date lastinsured she had problem s with herrightshoulderfollowing a fallseveralyearsearlierand could notliftitup alltheway otliftitin frontofhet.Shehad to liftthingsclose to herbody and did notbelieveshecould liftm ore than ten pounds. Shew ould need two handsto lifta gallon ofm ilk and colzld not do itrepetidvely.R.57,67.Shecould stand foronehalfhour>nd w alk foronehalfhotu on a flatsurface.R.58-59.She had lastworked asacaregiverforfop. tchildren butwasnotable to keepupwitlait.R.55.Sinceresigning from thatjob shehadstayed home,doingwhatcleaning she could around thehouse,and prepating onem ealperday.R.59.H erbiggestproblem sare pnin and spasm sin herback,and pain and sw elling in herhandsand wrists.R.61. Since 2014 the ûbrom yalgia hascaused hera1otofpain.She cannotstand fozanyone to touch herskin and she haspain through herchestand back and isfadgued allthe tim e.R. 66.If she gets the leastbit cold,she loses citculadon in het hands and toes.The loss of circlzladon in herhandsm akesitdifhcultto pick thingsup.R.66-67.The scletodetm aresults in herhandsswelling in the m orning,causing the sldn to becom e dghtand shiny.R.68.A lot . ofthe m edication she takescausesstom ach upset.R.69-70.She spends approxim ately fout holzrs per day lying on the couch with a heating pad and m ustrestin between household chores.R.70-71,74. C.M edicalOpiG on Evidence State agency . physiciansGene Godwin,M.D.,and James Datden,M .D.,assessed Roberta'sIIFC,flncling thatshe could occasionally liftorcarry twentypounds;frequently lift otcatryten pounds;stand,walk,orsitfozatotalofsixhotus;push andpullwithoutlim itation; occasionally clim b ropes,ladders,or scaffolds,kneel,crouch,or crawl;and frequently stoop. ln addidon,the expetts found thatRoberta had no m arlipuladve or visuallim itations,but should avoid concentrated exposuteto exttem ecold,heat,wetness,hlxm idityand hazardssuch asm aclnineryorheights.R.91-93. IV .Analysis A .O pinion ofTreating Physician In,general,an ATJmustaccozd m oreweightto them edicalopiion ofan examining spurce than to thatofa nonexsm ining source.Testam ark v.Ber 1* ,736 Fed.Appx.395, 387 (4th Cir.2018)(cidng 20 C.F.R.jj404.1527(c)(1),416.927(c)(1)and Brown v.Comm'r ofSoc.Sec.Aclmin.,873 F.3d 251,268 (4th Cir.2017)).Treating sourcesarelikelyto bethe m edicalpzofessionalsm ostable to provide a detailed,longitazclinalpicture ofthe cbim ant's medicalimpairments.Id.(ciéngW oodsv.Ber hill,888F.3d686,695(2018)).ffrllheATJ ,is required to give controllingw eightto opinionsproffered by a cllim ant'streadng physician so longastheopinion iswellsupported bym edically acceptableclirlicaland laboratorycliagnoséc techniques and is notinconsistentwith the othetsubstantialevidence in the cbim ant's case zecord.'?Lewis v.Ber hill,858 F.3d 858,867 (4th Cir.2017) (alteraéons and internal quotadonsonaittedl.3Ifan ATJ doesnotgive controllingweightto the opinion ofatreating source,the ATJ mustconsidetanon-exclusivelistoffactozsto deternlinetheweightto be given allthemedicalopinionsofrecord,including (1)exanniningrelaéonship;(2)trea% ent reladonsllip;(3)suppottabilityofthesoutce'sopH on;(4)consistencyoftheopinionwiththe record;and (5)specializadon ofthesource.Testamark,736Fed.Appx.at398. Under SSR 96-213,4 an adjudicator may give a treaéng soutce's medicalopinion controlling weightwhen itisfound to bew ell-supported by m edically acceptable clinicaland laboratorydiagnostictechniquesand isnotinconsistentw1t.11theothersubstandalevidencein theindividual'scaserecord.SSR 96-217,1996 W L 374188at*2.ffN otinconsistent''m eansthat while awell-supported treadng m edicalsouzce opinion need notbe supported ditectly by all 3TheSocialSecudtyAdm inistradon hasnm ended thetreating sourcerule effecdveM arch 27,2017,forcases ftled afterthatdate. Unde. rthenew rtzle,theSSA willconsiderthepersuasivenessofallm edicalopitzionsand evaluatethem primnrilyonthebasisofsupportabilityandconsistency.20C.F.R.j404.1520c(a),(c)(1)-(2). Because thiscasewasSled before theeffecdvedateofthechange,thededsion isreviewed underthe reguladonin effectatthattime,20C.F.R.j404.1527. 4SSR96-2P wasrescindedeffectiveM arch27,2017 aspartoftheamendmentofthetreatingsotlrctnlle.SSA- 2012-0035,2017WL 3928298.However,itwasineffectatthethnetheALJadjudicatedRoberta'sclaim. 11 the other evidence,no other substandalevidence in the caserecord conttaclicts or conflicts with theopitzion.Id.at*3. Ifan adjudicator fmdsthat a treadng medicalsource opinion is notendtled to controlling w eight because it is notw ell-supponed by other evidence in the tecord ot is inconsistentwith other substantklevidencein therecord,itdoesnotm ean thatthe opitlion should berejected.Rather,itstillisendtledto deferenceand mustbeweighed usingallthe factorsin20 C.F.R.jj404.1527and416.927.Theopinionmay stillbeenétledto thegreatest w eight,even ifitdoesnotm eetthe testforcontrolling weight.SSR 96-214,1996 W L 374188 at*4.Iftheadjudicatordeniesdisability,thenoticeofdenialmustcontain speciûcreasonsfor the w eightgiven to the treadng sotuce'sm edicalopinion,supported by the evidence in the case record,and m ustbe suf:ciently speciûc to m ake clea. rto any subsequentreviewers the weighttheadjudicatozgavetothetreadngsource'smedicalopinion andthereasonsforthat weight.Id.at*5. lnassessingRoberta'sIIFC,theATJflrstslAmmarizedRoberta'ssubjectivecomplaints ofsymptomsandimpaitments,andthensummarizedhertrea% enthistory.R.22-23.TheAI, J stated thatRoberta's ttea% enthistory reflected consistentand regularpursuitoftreatm ent butdid not6llly supportherallegaéons.The AT, Jstated thatclinicalobservationsand other evidencegenerallyhavebeen norm al,m ild,orm oderate;thatherconnectivedssuediseasehas notproduced signiûcantend-organ disease;echocardiogram and pulm onaty fuhcdon tests havebeen norm al;and she can clean house,preparem eals,and attend to personalcarelim ited 12 onlybytheallegedneed forbreaks.TheATJthen discussedtheopinionsofthestatemedical consultantsand the RFC assessm entsthey provided.R.24. ln turning to Dr.Lemmet'sassessmentofRoberta'slimitaéons,the AIJ recited the doctor's conclusions about Roberta's RFC and then stated, ffD r.Lem m er provides little supportforthisextrem eposiéon.Itisfot them ostpattinconsistentw1:14the consideradons raised above,itaassessing theclnim ant'sallegationsforconsistency w1t.1, 1therecord.1givethis opinion littleweight.''R.24. RobertaarguesthattheATJdidnotproperlyevaluateandcreditDr.Lemmer'sopinion ba accordancevdx20 C.F.R.j 404.1527 and SSR 96-217.She asserts thatifthe ATJ had accepted D r.Lem m er'sopinion ascontrolling,itwould havew arranted a fincling thatshewas disabled.Thecouêtagrees.The ATJ failed to discussany ofthe factorsforth in 20 C.F.R.j 404.1527 and thedeterrnination isotherwisevagtzeregarding thereasonsfor discounting D r. Lem m er'sopinion and giving itlittleweight. TheATJ clid notspecifywhichofDr.Lemmer'swereinconsistentwith therecord.Dr. Lem m er evaluated Roberta's exerdonal lim itadons, postural lim itadons, m anipuladve lim itadons,and her ability to work a fullworkday and worltw eek.Even if D r.Lem m er's opinion is entitled to little weight on one or m ore ofthese lim itadons,a fm ding thatitis enétled to controlling weight,or greater weight,on anothet ofthe lim itaéons could change Roberta'sR-FC.SeeSSR 96-211,1996W L 374188at*2 rfAlthoughitisnotnecessaryin every caseto evaluateeach tteaéng sotucemedicalopiion separately,adjudicatorsmustalwaysbe awarethatoneorm oreoftheopinionsmaybecontrollingwhileothersmaynot.'') Nordid the ATJ specifywhich partoftherecord isinconsistentwith Dr.Lemmer's assessm ent.H erreferenceto ffthe consideradonstaised above''refersto m lzldplepatagraphs, inclucling Roberta's testim ony atthe heating,which ism ostly consistentwith D r.Lem m er's assessm ent;hertreatm entbistory,som eofwhich isconsistentwith D r.Lem m er'sassessm ent; and theopinionsofthe state agency m edicalconsultants,which w erepatéally consistentw1t.11 Dr.Lemm er's assessm ent.In sum ,thelack ofreference to specific hnclings by Dr.Lem m er and to speciEcpartsoftherecord thatareinconsistentwith llisfindings,frustratesm eaningful review oftheATJdecision.SeeMascio,780F.3dat637rfBecausewearelefttoguessabout how the AI, Jarrived athisconclusions...and indeed,remain uncettain asto whatthe AT, J intended,remandisnecessarp'') In hisbdef,the Com m issioner argues thatD r.Lem m et's assessm ent conflicted with the state agency m edicalconsultantswho found thatRoberta can do lightwotk.H e further argues thatm any ofher lim itadonshave been described asm ild or m oderate in the m edical tecotds and het objective medicaltests were largely normal,negadve,or unremarkable. However,inreviewingadete- inationbyanadministtadveagency,thecout'tmustjudgethe propriety ofthe acdon solely on thegroundsinvoked by the agency.Baile v.Ber hill,N o. 2:16-CV-07044,2017W L 3834990at*11(S.D.W .V 2017)(citingBtulingtonTruckLines,lnc., v.UnitedStates,371U.S.156,159(1962)).SeealsoW illiamsv.Colvin,No.6:11-2344-61G IU M ,2013 W L 877128 at*6 O .S.C.2013)(finding thatifAT, J'sexplanation ofweightshe gaveto physician'sopinion isnotspecihcenough underSSR 96-2p,courtcannotacceptpost- hoccitaéon by Commissionerto evidenceAIJ may haveconsideted);Hilton v.Asttue,No. 6:10-2012-CM C, 2011 W L 5869704 at (fincling court cannot accept post-hoc raéonalizations not contnined within ATJ decision).Thus,the court cannot rely on the Commissioner'scitationsto thezecordto findthattheATJ'sanalysisofthetreati ngphysician opinion in thiscaseisbased on substanéalevidence. A m ore detailed analysisofD r.Lem m er'sassessm entisimportantforallofRoberta's alleged im pnitm ents,butparticulatly forherm anipulaéveim pni= ents.Roberta testo ed that when shehasaflareup oftheReynaud'sphenom enon shelosescirculation in herhands.Also, the scleroderm a causesher handsto swell,which is painftzland m akesitdifficultto m ake a hst,especially in the m orning.Both tlae Reynaud's phenom enon and scleroderm a are welldocllm ented in the record and D r.Lem m er opined thatRoberta had signihcantlim itaéons doingrepetdvereaching,handling,orfmgering.Nevertheless,the ATJ found thatshecould frequently handle,feel,and Sngerwith b0th hands and found thatrepresentadve work she could do included thatofa cafeteria attendant,tickettaker,or cashier1l,allofwhich involve repeated use ofthe hands. W ithoutamotedetailedexplanaéon ofwhytheATJgavelittleweightto Dr.Lemmer's assessm ent,and especially ofRoberta'smanipulative limitations,the AT, J's opinion is not supported by substantialevidence.A ccozclingly,the courtREM AN D S Roberta's cbim foz fiztthezconsideration ofD r.Lem m er'sopinion regarding herlim itadons. B .Consideration ofA dditionalE vidence In W ilkinsv.Sec' De 'tHealth and Human Servs.,953 F.2d 93,96 (4th Cir.1991), theFourth Circuitheld thatfv heAppealsCouncilm ustconsiderevidence submitted wit.h the requestforreview in decidingwhetherto grantreview <iftheaddiéonalevidenceis(a)new, (b)material,and(c)telatestotheperiodonorbeforethedateoftheAT, J'Sdecision.'''(quodng Williamsv.Slzllivan,905F.2d 214,216 (8th Ciz.1990)).In addition,theremustalso be a reasonableprobability thatthe additionalevidencew ould changetheoutcom e ofthe decision and aclnim antm ustshow good cause fornotsubmitting the evidence atleastfive daysbefore theATJhearing.20 C.F.R.jj404.970,416.1470. Afterthe AT, J henring,Roberta subnzitted addidonalmedicalrecordsto theAppeals Council,including treatm entrecordsfrom Salem Rheum atology,P.A .,and am edicalsouzce statem ent from ElliotSem ble,M .D .,Roberta's new treating rhelxm atologist.The trea% ent records are dated June 8,2017 thtough November 6,2017 and indicate thatRoberta's fibrom yalgiasym ptom shadworsened and shehad anew diagnosisofCREST syndrom e.sShe reported pain and sw elling in herhandslasting forone m onth.R.33-48. D t.Sem ble'sstatem entw asdated N ovem ber14,2017 buthechecked aboï indicadng thatitrelated back to A ugust21,2014.H e found lim itationssim ilarto thosein D r.Lem m ez's assessm ent.R.8-10.The Appeals Councildeclined to consider the evidence,fm ding thatit did notaffectthe decision ofwhetherRobertawasdisabled through D ecem ber31,2014. Robertaarguesthatalthough the evidencewassubmitted fourm onthsaftetthe denial decision,thatD r.Sem ble stated thatthe lim itationsim posed w ould have been applicable as 5CRIRST syndrom e,alsoknown aslimited scleroderma,isawidespread connecdve dssuedisease charactee ed by changesin the skin,bloodvessels,and internalorgans.Itischatactetized by calcium deposits in theconnecdvedssues,Reynaud'sphenom enon,esophagealdysftm cdon,thick and dghtskin on the Fm gers, and smalltedspotson thehandsand face.h% s://rareiseases.lfo.nl.gov/&seases/lz43o/crest-syn&ome (lastviewedSeptember26,2019). ofAugust2014,priorto the dateRobertawaslastinslzred.TheCom m issionerarguesthatthe evidenceisnotTfnew?'becauseitiscum uladveotduplicadveofevidencealreadyin therecord. 1 Because the cotut fm ds thatrem and is warranted in this case,it fiztther fm ds thata discussion ofthe addiéonalevidence in terms ofW ilkins and 20 C.F.R.j 404.970 is not necessary.O n rem and,the Com rnissionerisdirected to review allthe evidencein the record, inciudingtheevidencesubmitted totheAppealsCounc; afterthe ATJ ,henting. V .Conclusion Forthereasonsstated,theCourtfindsthe AT, J'Sdetetvnination to accord littleweight to Roberta'stteating physician isnotsupported by substantialevidence.Accorclingly,thefinal decision ofthe Com m issionerisVA CATE D and Roberta'scaseisRE M AN DE D pursuant to sentence fourof42 U.S.C.j405(g)forf''rtherconsideration ofthe evidence assetfotth above. An appropriateordezwillbe entezed. Itisso O RD ERED . sntezed:* VJo/a. a/? ' * * # W z M ichaelF ' ... * ' . '. ' tbanski Chief nited StatesDistrictl 'fidje ''''' s
]]>
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.
