Goeller v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

W.D. Oklahoma

Goeller v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma·Decided April 14, 2020·No. 5:19-cv-00491·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

JOY R. GOELLER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-19-491-SM ) ANDREW M. SAUL, ) Commissioner of Social ) Security Administration, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Joy Goeller (Plaintiff) brings this action for judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision that she was not “disabled” under the Social Security Act. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 423(d)(1)(A). The parties have consented to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). Docs. 11, 14. Plaintiff maintains the ALJ misevaluated the medical evidence and “erred in his consistency analysis.” Doc. 17, at 9-23. After a careful review of the record (AR), the parties’ briefs, and the relevant authority, the court affirms the Commissioner’s decision. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).1

1 Citations to the parties’ pleadings and attached exhibits will refer to this I. Administrative determination. A. Disability standard.

The Social Security Act defines “disability” as the “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less

than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). “This twelve-month duration requirement applies to the claimant’s inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity, and not just h[er] underlying impairment.” Lax v. Astrue, 489 F.3d 1080, 1084 (10th Cir. 2007) (citing Barnhart v. Walton, 535 U.S. 212, 218-

19 (2002)). B. Burden of proof. Plaintiff “bears the burden of establishing a disability” and of “ma[king] a prima facie showing that [s]he can no longer engage in h[er] prior work

activity.” Turner v. Heckler, 754 F.2d 326, 328 (10th Cir. 1985). If Plaintiff makes that prima facie showing, the burden of proof then shifts to the Commissioner to show Plaintiff retains the capacity to perform a different type of work and that such a specific type of job exists in the national economy. Id. C. Relevant findings. 1. Administrative Law Judge’s findings.

The ALJ assigned to Plaintiff’s case applied the standard regulatory analysis to decide whether Plaintiff was disabled during the relevant timeframe. AR 19-37; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4); see also Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048, 1052 (10th Cir. 2009) (describing the five-step process). The

ALJ found Plaintiff: (1) had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since July 15, 2015, the alleged onset date;

(2) had the severe impairments of degenerative disc disorder, fibromyalgia, obesity, non-insulin diabetes mellitus, anxiety disorder, and affective disorders;

(3) had no impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of a listed impairment;

(4) had the RFC to perform sedentary work with the following nonexertional limitations: can only perform simple, routine, and repetitive tasks; can have occasional interaction with co- workers, supervisors, and public; and must be free of production rate pace;

(5) she could perform no past relevant work;

(6) could perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy, namely document preparer, envelope stuffer, and table worker; and so

(7) was not disabled from July 15, 2015 through August 23, 2018.

AR 19-37. 2. Appeals Council’s findings. The SSA’s Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review, making

the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision. Id. at 1-5; see 20 C.F.R. § 422.210(a). II. Judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision.

A. Review standard. The court reviews the Commissioner’s final decision to determine “whether substantial evidence supports the factual findings and whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards.” Allman v. Colvin, 813 F.3d 1326,

1330 (10th Cir. 2016). Substantial evidence is “more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance.” Lax, 489 F.3d at 1084; see also Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019) (“It means—and means only—such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a

conclusion.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). A decision is not based on substantial evidence “if it is overwhelmed by other evidence in the record.” Wall, 561 F.3d at 1052 (citation omitted). The court will “neither reweigh the evidence nor substitute [its] judgment for that of the agency.”

Newbold v. Colvin, 718 F.3d 1257, 1262 (10th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). B. Issues for judicial review. 1. The ALJ adequately considered the medical evidence.

Plaintiff’s argument centers around the ALJ’s consideration of Dr. Newey’s medical source statements that placed significant restrictions upon Plaintiff. The ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if it is “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory

diagnostic techniques and is consistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.” Allman v. Colvin, 813 F.3d 1326, 1331 (10th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). If the ALJ decides, however, that “the treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must then

consider whether the opinion should be rejected altogether or assigned some lesser weight.” Pisciotta v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 1074, 1077 (10th Cir. 2007). Here, the ALJ gave Dr. Newey’s opinions “little to no weight.” AR 35. a. Medical records prior to the onset date.

The ALJ made the following observations regarding Plaintiff’s medical visits before the onset date.  July 7, 2009: P.A.C. Gina Hernandez saw Plaintiff for weight management – Plaintiff reported fatigue, aches, and pains and wanted testing to determine the source.

 July 16, 2009: Plaintiff had read a booklet regarding fibromyalgia and reported that most of the symptoms “was what she was having”; she reported still taking Lorcet and Xanax; she had stable vital signs, no acute distress, regular heart rate, and clear lungs.  April 15, 2013: Dr. Newey reported Plaintiff was well-nourished, well- developed, alert, oriented, and in no acute distress; normal physical examination with unlabored breathing, regular heart rate and no murmurs; grossly oriented to person, place, and time; normal communication ability; normal attention, intact concentration abilities; normal gait and appropriate affect; assessed with major depression (single episode) and prescribed Celexa.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI