Allen v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

• Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
• Decided: February 6, 2019
• Docket: 5:17-cv-05190
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

INT HEU NITED SDTIASTTERSCI OCUTR T WESTEDRINS TROIFCA TR KANSAS FAYETTEVDIIVLILSEI ON DEANAAL LEN PLAINTIFF V. CASEN O5.: 17-CV-05190

NANCAY.B ERRYHAIcLtLiC,no gm missioner DEFENDANT SocSieaclu Ardimtiyn istration OPINIAONNDO RDER Currebnetflotyrh Ceeo uirtst hRee poartn Rde commend(a"tRi&(oRDn"o )1c 3.) oft hHeo noraEbrliLen.W iedemaCnhni,Ue nfi tSetda tMeasg istJruadtgfeeot rh e WesteDrins torfAi rckta nfsialsie,ntd h ciass oenS eptem7b,2e 0r1 P8l.a iDnetainffa Allreenq uejsutdsir ceivaioleft w h dee citsoid oennh ye crl aifomras p erioofdd i sability anddi sabiinlsiutrbyae nncee(f "iDt1sa8 n"sd)u pplemseonctiaall isneccou(mr"eiS tyS I") beneufnidtteshr pe r oviosfTi iotn1lsa1e n sd oXftV hISe o ciSaelc uArcitt.y TheM agistJruadtgreee commeanffidrsm itnhgAe d minisLtarwaJ tuidvgee 's ("ALdJe"t)e rmitnhaaAttli loiensnn o etn tittoDl IeBda ndS SIb enefIintP sl.a intiffs objectsihoean rsg,ut ehsat thA eL Je ngagien"d i mpermmiesdsiiccboalnlej ecitnu re" givilnigtw teliegt hott h mee diocpailn ioofDn rsW. i llKieanmd rPilcaki,n ttrieffast ing

physic(iDao1nc4..a t2 )P.l ainotbijffescs tpieocni fpiecrtaaltilont yshA eL Jg ivliintgt le weigthoDt r K.e ndrick's ionfPt learipnlrtueimtffbaMsatR riI wo,hn i alffeo rdgirnega t weigthott ho ep inoifto hnse t aatgee ncmye'dsic coanls ulItda.nts. Inl igohfAt l leonb'jse cttihCoeon ushrt,a su ndertaakd eenn o vrae vioeftw h e recoarndda, ft edro isnogf, i ntdhsat thO eb jectoiffoennres i tfhaencrot l ra jwu stifying deviating from the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. Accordingly, the R&R will be ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. . I. LEGAL STANDARD In reviewing a decision of an ALJ, the Court must determine if the decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Flynn v. Chater, 107 F.3d 617, 620 (8th Cir. 1997); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2017). Substantial evidence is “less than a preponderance.” Rodysill v. Colvin, 745 F.3d 947, 949 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Jones v. Astrue, 619 F.3d 963, 968 (8th Cir. 2010)). Additionally, substantial evidence is “relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support the Commissioner's conclusion.” Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065, 1068 (8th Cir. 2000). The Court considers both evidence that supports the ALJ’s decision alongside evidence that - detracts. Rodysill, 745 F.3d at 949. If substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion, the Court cannot reverse simply because substantial evidence also supports a different outcome. Jones, 619 F.3d at 968; Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2001). Essentially, if “after reviewing the record, the court finds that it is possible to draw two inconsistent positions from the evidence and one of those positions represents the ALJ’s findings, the court must affirm the ALJ’s decision.” Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 790-91 (8th Cir. 2005). In considering medical records and opinions, an ALJ possess the discretion to “discount an opinion of a treating physician that is inconsistent with the physician’s clinical treatment notes.” Davidson v. Astrue, 578 F.3d 838, 843 (8th Cir. 2009).

>

ll. ALLEN’S OBJECTIONS Plaintiff makes two objections to the R&R, both of which stem from the ALJ's decision to give little weight to the opinion of Dr. Kendrick. (Doc. 14 at 2). Plaintiff asserts these issues were not considered in the R&R. /d. First, Plaintiff argues the ALJ engaged in “improper medical conjecture” by giving Dr. Kendrick’s opinion, specifically his interpretation of the Plaintiffs lumbar MRI, little weight. /d. at 2. This Court finds that the ALJ gave appropriate weight to Dr. Kendrick’s opinion. The ALJ ultimately diminished the weight given Dr. Kendrick’s opinion because of inconsistencies with his treatment notes. (Doc. 9 at 22); Goff, 421 F.3d at 790-91 (noting that “an appropriate finding of inconsistency with other evidence alone is sufficient to discount [a treating physician’s] opinion’). Second, Plaintiff argues that the state agency medical consultants’ opinions are insufficient to support the ALJ’s decision because they did not consider or interpret Plaintiffs lumbar MRI. (Doc. 14 at 3). Essentially, Plaintiff argues that because Dr. Kendrick’s opinion was given little weight by the ALJ and the state agency did not consider the MRI, an “evidentiary deficit” emerges that cannot be reasonably resolved by the ALJ’s own interpretation. /d. This Court finds that the ALJ afforded appropriate weight to both Dr. Kendrick and the state agency consultants under the substantial evidence standard. As a result, the ALJ properly contemplated the results of Plaintiff's lumbar MRI. The ALJ did not reject outright the opinion of Dr. Kendrick as Plaintiff suggests. /d. Instead, the ALJ considered the opinion of Dr. Kendrick, but gave it diminished weight because of reasonably perceived inconsistencies between his opinion and treatment notes. (Doc. 9 at 22). While it may be reasonable to draw two separate conclusions from the evidence

presented to the ALJ, it is clear that the ALJ acted reasonably in affording less weight to Dr. Kendrick, and as a result, this Court must affirm the ALJ’s findings. Haley, 258 F.3d at 747 (noting that “as long as there is substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's decision, we will not reverse it simply because substantial evidence exists in the record that would have supported a different outcome’). lll. CONCLUSION IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all of Allen’s objections to the R&R are OVERRULED. The R&R (Doc. 13) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY, and the findings of the ALJ are affirmed. Judgment will th concurrently with this opinion. IT IS SO ORDERED on this Cay of February, 2019.

□ Cr OOKS UNITEDUSTATES DISTRICT JUDGE