Posts Tagged With: United States district court

Judges Stripped Of Judicial Independnce At SSA

Posted on February 28, 2014 by Judge London Steverson

SSA increases oversight of judges in disability determinations

The Social Security Administration (SSA) recently announced plans to increase its oversight of judges (ALJs) in the disability determination process.
February 25, 2014 /24-7PressRelease/ — In an effort to improve consistency in the disability determination process (SSDI), the Social Security Administration (SSA) recently announced plans to step up its oversight of the administrative law judges (ALJ) who are responsible for awarding or denying disability benefits. The Social Security Disability Insurance program provides financial benefits to people who are unable to work because of a mental or physical disability. 
The program has increased substantially in the years since the U.S. economy took a downturn in 2008, and there are now approximately 11 million people receiving disability benefits nationwide. New job descriptions for judges To expand its oversight of the eligibility determination process, the SSA is rewriting the job descriptions of approximately 1,500 judges, who in the past have been given broad discretion over the outcome of eligibility hearings. In recent years, these eligibility hearings have yielded notoriously unpredictable results.
http://www.amazon.com/socialNsecurity-Confessions-Social-Security-Judge/dp/1449569757
According to a 2011 report by the Wall Street Journal, an applicant’s likelihood of being awarded disability benefits can vary dramatically depending on the judge; while a handful of judges award benefits in nine cases out of ten, others deny benefits nearly as often.  
The new job descriptions will include language stating that the judges are subject to supervision and will remove the words “complete individual independence,” the WSJ reported. It is hoped that the changes will increase accountability among the judges and allow the SSA to take corrective measures when judges award or deny benefits inappropriately.
 Disability benefit determination 
Before becoming eligible to receive SSDI benefits, an applicant must first establish that he or she meets the SSA’s requirements for being considered “disabled.” To do so, the applicant must demonstrate that each of the following is true: – The individual cannot work because of a medical condition. – The condition has lasted or is expected to last for a year or more, or is expected to result in death.
 While the process of applying for SSDI benefits may seem relatively straightforward, in practice it can be cumbersome, time consuming and often frustrating. Not only is it necessary to submit medical records and other evidence of disability, but in most cases applicants are also required to attend an eligibility hearing before an administrative law judge.
Benefits often available after initial denial
Overall, first-time disability applicants are denied benefits as much as, according to some estimates, but a majority of denied applicants who pursue an appeal are eventually awarded benefits.
http://www.amazon.com/socialNsecurity-Confessions-Social-Security-Judge/dp/1449569757
 In many cases, working with an experienced Social Security Disability lawyer can significantly improve an applicant’s chances of being awarded benefits, whether it is a first-time application or an appeal.
(Article provided by The Berkley Law Firm Visit us at www.berkleylaw.net — Press release service.)
Categories: Social Security Judges | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

SSA Judges In NYC Found Guilty Of Bias. 4,000 Disability Claimants Offered New Hearings

Posted on January 30, 2014 by Judge London Steverson

New hearings for SS claimants who received unfavorable decisions by ALJs.

A court has approved a settlement agreement in a class action lawsuit involving Social Security Disability claimants in the State of New York. The agreement will provide claimants with new hearings.

January 24, 2014 – A settlement agreement has been reached and approved by the court in a class action lawsuit involving Social Security Disability claimants in the State of New York. Among the different types of relief stipulated in the agreement, claimants are to receive fresh hearings in front of new Administrative Law Judges, or ALJs.

(The specifics of the lawsuit)

 In 2011, various Social Security Disability applicants who sought disability benefits received unfavorable or partially favorable judgements by one of five ALJs from the Queens, New York Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (SSA/ODAR).

The claimants argued that the rulings were biased.

 In April 2011, they filed a lawsuit against the Social Security Administration. The case was later filed as a class action and expanded to include approximately 4,000 total Social Security Disability claimants.

 Attorneys for both sides worked toward a resolution throughout the various months thereafter. (Settlement approved)

A settlement agreement was officially approved by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The approval came after written comments provided to the court as well as information obtained from the settlement hearings, among other evidence, were reviewed.

The Settlement Agreement includes individual, retrospective and prospective relief for claimants, new training and mentoring for ALJs, and a new Social Security Ruling, or SSR.

(New hearings for class members)

 In more specific terms, the Settlement Agreement stipulates that all eligible claimants, those who received unfavorable or partially favorable decisions from one of the named ALJ, defendant judges during the period stipulated in the complaint, will receive new hearings. The Social Security Administration indicates plans to send out notices to each claimant by the end of next month. Eligible claimants are provided 60 days to request a new hearing once their notices are received.

(Other settlement stipulations)

 The Settlement also stipulates that an automatic review will be conducted by the SSA’s Appeals Council (A/C)for any new claimants who receive unfavorable decisions (those that commenced October 2013 and for 30 months thereafter) by any one of the five ALJs named in the recent lawsuit. If the A/C determines any unfavorable decisions are legally insufficient, the claimant will automatically receive a fresh hearing in front of a new ALJ.

Under the agreement, the SSA will also provide additional training and mentorship to all ALJs to help them improve the ways they handle and conduct Social Security Disability hearings in the future. Additionally, the settlement stipulates a new Social Security Ruling that details new procedures on how to address allegations of “unfair ALJ hearings, ALJ bias, and ALJ misconduct.”

( Article provided by The Klein Law Group, P.C., at www.thekleinlawgroup.com)

NYC Social Security Disability Attorneys.

The Klein Law Group, P.C., fights for the rights of those who have been hurt at work or are unable to qualify for disability pay.

Practicing solely in New York state, with lawyers are highly knowledgeable in the area of New York workers’ compensation law, as well as the complex workings of the federal Social Security Administration.

The Klein Law Group, P.C., can confidently take your case at any stage, from initial application through final appeal before the Workers’ Compensation Board. In the rare event that you do not receive benefits, you pay no attorney’s fees.

The Klein Law Group, P.C., offers free consultations to discuss your rights and review your case. Contact us to arrange a consultation with one of our experienced New York workers’ comp attorneys.

Our international staff speaks Polish, Spanish, Chinese (Mandarin and Cantonese) and Russian.

 

Categories: Social Security Judges | Tags: , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

If You Can Still Do Your Past Relevant Work, You Are Not Disabled

Posted on April 11, 2012 by Judge London Steverson

GAY v. ASTRUE

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division.

 

 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
TERRY F. MOORER, Magistrate Judge.
Joseph Allen Gay, (“Plaintiff” or “Gay”) applied for supplemental security income (SSI) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (“the Act”),  in October 2009. . Gay alleged that he became disabled on February 4, 2007 after a motor vehicle accident. Gay timely filed for and received a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ“) who rendered an unfavorable decision on January 25, 2011.  Gay in turn petitioned for review to the Appeals Council who rejected review of Gay’s case on March 25, 1011.  As a result, the ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”). The parties have consented to entry of final judgment by the United States Magistrate Judge.
The Court’s review of the Commissioner’s decision is a limited one. The Court’s sole function is to determine whether the ALJ’s opinion is supported by substantial evidence and whether the proper legal standards were applied. 
“The Social Security Act mandates that `findings of the Secretary as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive.'” Thus, this Court must find the Commissioner’s decision conclusive if it is supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla — i.e., the evidence must do more than merely create a suspicion of the existence of a fact, and must include such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support the conclusion. 
If the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, the district court will affirm, even if the court would have reached a contrary result as finder of fact, and even if the evidence preponderates against the Commissioner’s findings. The Court must view the evidence as a whole, taking into account evidence favorable as well as unfavorable to the decision. The Court “may not decide facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute [its] judgment for that of the [Commissioner],” but rather it “must defer to the Commissioner’s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence.”

 

The Court will also reverse a Commissioner’s decision on plenary review if the decision applies incorrect law, or if the decision fails to provide the district court with sufficient reasoning to determine that the Commissioner properly applied the law. There is no presumption that the Commissioner’s conclusions of law are valid. 
II. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The Social Security Act’s general disability insurance benefits program (“DIB“) provides income to individuals who are forced into involuntary, premature retirement, provided they are both insured and disabled, regardless of indigence.  The Social Security Act’s Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) is a separate and distinct program. SSI is a general public assistance measure providing an additional resource to the aged, blind, and disabled to assure that their income does not fall below the poverty line. Eligibility for SSI is based upon proof of indigence and disability. However, despite the fact they are separate programs, the law and regulations governing a claim for DIB and a claim for SSI are identical; therefore, claims for DIB and SSI are treated identically for the purpose of determining whether a claimant is disabled. Applicants under DIB and SSI must provide “disability” within the meaning of the Social Security Act which defines disability in virtually identical language for both programs. A person is entitled to disability benefits when the person is unable 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.
A “physical or mental impairment” is one resulting from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.
The Commissioner of Social Security employs a five-step, sequential evaluation process to determine whether a claimant is entitled to benefits.

STEP (1) Is the person presently unemployed?

STEP (2) Is the person’s impairment(s) severe?
STEP (3) Does the person’s impairment(s) meet or equal one of the specific impairments set forth in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1?
STEP (4) Is the person unable to perform his or her former occupation?
STEP (5) Is the person unable to perform any other work within the economy?
An affirmative answer to any of the questions leads either to the next question, or, on steps three and five, to a finding of disability. A negative answer to any question, other than step three, leads to a determination of “not disabled.”

The burden of proof rests on a claimant through Step 4. Claimants establish a prima facie case of qualifying disability once they meet the burden of proof from Step 1 through Step 4. At Step 5, the burden shifts to the Commissioner, who must then show there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy the claimant can perform.

To perform the fourth and fifth steps, the ALJ must determine the claimant’s Residual Functional Capacity (RFC). RFC is what the claimant is still able to do despite his impairments and is based on all relevant medical and other evidence. Id. It also can contain both exertional and nonexertional limitations. At the fifth step, the ALJ considers the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience to determine if there are jobs available in the national economy the claimant can perform.  To do this, the ALJ can either use the Medical Vocational Guidelines (“grids”) or hear testimony from a vocational expert (VE). 
The grids allow the ALJ to consider factors such as age, confinement to sedentary or light work, inability to speak English, educational deficiencies, and lack of job experience. Each factor can independently limit the number of jobs realistically available to an individual. Id. at 1240. Combinations of these factors yield a statutorily-required finding of “Disabled” or “Not Disabled.” 
III. ADMINISTRATIVE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Gay testified that he was 53 years old and completed ninth grade.  Gay has not worked since 1998, nine years prior to his alleged onset date of February 4, 2007. In the past 15 years, Gay has worked as a forklift driver and furnace loader. Gay testified that he is now unable to work because of headaches, and balance and memory problems.  Gay claims that he has headaches about three to four times a week and he rates the headache pain as a ten on a ten point scale. Id. He testified that he has to lie down and rest for about four hours to relieve the pain.  Furthermore, Gay testified that his prescription Lortab does not eliminate his lower back pain.  He also testified that he has muscle spasms which start in his right arm and extend into his neck. Since August 2009, Gay has performed certain household chores, but he testified that the activities take longer to complete because of his dizziness.  Specifically he testified when he cuts wood, his hands stiffen and he has to sit down
The ALJ found that Gay had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since August, 24, 2009, the application date. He found that Gay’s status post-motor-vehicle accident in February 2007, his headaches, low back pain and hypertension were severe, but that he did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (2011).  The ALJ found that Gay retained the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform the full range of medium work which involves lifting no more than 50 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying up to 25 pounds. (Medium, unskilled.)  Alternatively, the ALJ found that Gay could perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy by applying Medical-Vocational Rule 203.19.  Thus, the ALJ concludes that Gay was not disabled as defined by the Act.
IV. MEDICAL HISTORY

Gay’s medical records are spotty. The first submitted records show Gay was injured in a motor vehicle accident on February 6, 2007, was hospitalized and discharged on February 10, 2007.  The accident occurred when Gay ran a red light while intoxicated and struck another car.  Gay was admitted to the hospital on a ventilator and placed in the intensive care unit. Gay sustained a pulmonary contusion and subarachnoid hemorrhage from the wreck, but was neurologically intact, awake, alert and able to move all extremities. He made good progress over the next few days and was discharged on February 10, 2007.  The next records show Gay received medication management for hypertension while incarcerated in the Coffee County Jail in March and April of 2010.

In June, 2010, Gay saw Dr. John M. Allgood, a family practitioner, for the first time and requested medication for hypertension and pain.  He also complained of difficulty swallowing, and vision problems, lower back pain, dizziness, fainting and numbness in his feet. Id. Plaintiff had a normal examination. Specifically, Dr. Allgood found Gay had a normal general appearance and his cardiovascular, musculoskeletal and neurological systems were also normal. Dr. Allgood ordered laboratory tests , and found Gay had an H. pylori infection. He prescribed antibiotics and blood pressure medications for Gay.
Gay saw Dr. Allgood again on July 29, 2010 with complaints of shortness of breath, back and shoulder pain, spasms in his right upper arm and choking. Dr. Allgood found Gay’s blood pressure was elevated and he assessed esophageal reflux and intercostal myositis.  He prescribed antibiotics and medication for esophageal reflux.  On September 8, 2010 Gay complained of a bad cold and requested a muscle relaxer and pain medication.  Dr. Allgood diagnosed acute bronchitis, esophageal reflux and intervertebral disc degeneration and prescribed medications.  On November 10, 2010, Gay complained that he continued to have “some trouble swallowing” and needed refills of his pain medications.  Dr. Allgood diagnosed dysphagia, joint pain, and hypertension.  He prescribed pain medication and a muscle relaxant, as well as medication for esophageal reflux.
In connection with his application for benefits, Gay underwent two consultative examinations. Gay was seen by Dr. James O. Colley, a general surgeon, on November 23, 2009 for a physical and neurological examination  In December, 2009, Eugene E. Fleece Ph.D, a State agency physician, conducted a mental evaluation of Gay. Gay complained to Dr. Colley about constant headaches, difficulty swallowing, low back pain, sinusitis, possible obstructive sleep apnea, poor balance and hypertension. He said over-the-counter medications did not help his headaches and that his memory is failing.  Gay said that he could walk about a half a mile, sit without any difficulty, stand for about an hour before having balance problems, care for his own personal needs, sweep for 20-30 minutes, make the bed, do laundry and dishes, cook, and shop, but did not do yard work or drive. He stated that since his accident, he has reduced his drinking from about a case and a half of beer to a six-pack of beer per week.
Dr. Colley reported on physical examination that Gay spoke clearly was well-built, well-nourished, fully oriented and in no acute distress. Gay had normal gait, station and coordination and was able to squat and stand without assistance. He had full range of spinal and joint motion except for mild pain on full passive range of right shoulder motion. Gay had no trouble getting on and off the exam table and moving from a seated position to a standing position. (Tr. 222, 224-225). Gay also had full strength and normal sensation and reflexes. (Tr. 225). Dr. Colley noted a normal examination but diagnosed traumatic headaches, sinusitis, a history of dysphagia and alcohol abuse and myofacial upper thoracic spine pain. (Tr. 226).
Dr. Fleece stated in his “Mental Summary” of Gay that “[w]e don’t have any reason to think there is anything substantial to evaluate in terms of down memory, so would not suggest a CE.” In making this determination, Dr. Fleece asked his assistant, Gail F. Johnson, to contact Gay and ask him to give examples of his memory impairment. Gay gave the example of having to use a grocery list, and failing to remember the days of the week. Dr. Fleece dismissed the first as “not impressive” and the second as “very common”.  Furthermore, Dr. Fleece noted that Gay “rambled a good deal” when asked to give examples of memory impairments “as if he was trying to produce something in support of his allegation.”
Dr. Fleece also discounted Gay’s 2007 automobile accident as a cause of any “cognitive damage” because there were no records of such impairment over the last two years. Dr. Fleece noted Gay’s “vague” complaints of memory, understanding and dealing with others, but concluded he “does not sound withdrawn” because he cooks out with friends, watches games, and has a fianceé. Moreover, Dr. Fleece was unimpressed by Gay’s claim of confusion with changes, noting “he handles money well in all areas.”
V. ISSUES

Gay raises five issues for judicial review:
(1) Whether the ALJ failed to fulfill his duty to develop the record by not providing an RFC supported by a physician’s opinion? 
(2) Whether the ALJ failed to fulfill his duty to develop the record by not following the Psychiatric Review Technique Form. (PRTF)? 
(3) Whether the ALJ failed to address all the limitations of the claimant’s severe impairments in the RFC assessment? 
(4) Whether the ALJ considered past relevant work that was not substantial, gainful activity in finding that Gay is able to perform his past work as a forklift driver and furnace loader? 
(5) Whether the ALJ erred in relying on the testimony of Patrick Sweeney, the VE? 
VI. DISCUSSION

Substantial Evidence Supports the ALJ’s Finding that Plaintiff Could Perform a Full Range of Medium Work.6
The ALJ concluded that Gay had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform a full range of medium work.  The Commissioner’s decision is due to be affirmed “if it is supported by substantial evidence and the correct legal standards were applied.”  “Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance, but rather such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” 
In making this finding, the ALJ stated that he carefully considered the record as a whole. Indeed, the ALJ thoroughly summarized Gay’s complaints of headaches, dizziness, low back pain and high blood pressure and their severity as presented by Gay at the hearing before the ALJ. However, the ALJ noted a lack of any medical treatment for Gay from February, 2007 until he received treatment for hypertension during his incarceration at the Coffee County Jail in March and April 2010. The ALJ also relied on Dr. Colley’s consultative exam findings made in November, 2009, which detailed no objective findings which would corroborate Plaintiff’s complaints of pain, and Dr. Allgood’s treatment notes, beginning in June, 2010, which also showed few objective findings and in which he recommended only the most conservative treatment possible.  Thus, the court concludes that the ALJ’s determination is one that a reasonable person would accept, and therefore, substantial evidence exists to support the ALJ’s conclusion as to Gay’s RFC. 
Gay further argues that “the correct legal standards were [not] applied”,  since the RFC finding was not directly supported by a treating or examining physician’s opinion as required by Coleman v. Barnhart, 264 F.Supp. 1007. However, this court has previously addressed this very argument in, and distinguished Coleman on the basis of its facts and because the Coleman court gave no citation to any source of law requiring a physician’s assessment for the purposes of making an RFC determination. 
This court further explained that it was persuaded by the reasoning of Judge Foy Guin in Langley v. Astrue. Indeed, Langley disagreed with the Coleman reasoning finding that it “attempt[s] to place the burden of proving the claimant’s RFC on the Commissioner at step five” and this shifting of the burden is “inconsistent with the Commissioner’s regulations, Supreme Court precedent and unpublished decisions in this Circuit.”  Accordingly the Court concludes that Gay’s argument fails and the ALJ did not err in finding Plaintiff’s RFC without the benefit of a physician’s assessment in the record.
The ALJ Reasonably Evaluated Plaintiff’s Alleged Mental Problems.
Gay argues that the Commissioner’s decision should be reversed because the ALJ failed to fulfill his duty to develop the record by not completing a Psychiatric Review Technique Form (“PRTF”) or at least using its mode of analysis. The Commissioner argues that even if the ALJ should have included a PRTF, either by appending the document or incorporating the analysis, that the error was harmless and should not be a cause for reversal of the ALJ’s decision. See Diorio v. Heckler, 721 F.2d 726 (11th Cir. 1983) (holding error harmless where appropriate facts are applied to reach a conclusion and are supported by the record.)

The ALJ, discounted Gay’s allegations of mental problems stating that although he
“alleged some complaints in his activities of daily living; [Gay] however, testified that he is able to cook out with friends, watch sports games and he reported that he has a fiancee.” [sic]
Moreover, the record demonstrates that Gay could read and write, perform basic math, understand and respond to questions at the hearing before the ALJ, provide for his own personal care, prepare meals, do housework and some yard work and walk where he needed to go.  Additionally the record demonstrates that Gay was able to provide detailed and comprehensive information about his past medical history to Dr. Colley and Dr. Allgood.  Further, during the consultative examination with Dr. Colley, Gay was consistent, gave good effort, had clear speech, and was fully alert and oriented.  It is significant that Gay did not complain of any cognitive difficulties to his treating physician, Dr. Allgood and the record contains no medical source observations of any sort of cognitive or mental problems.
Additionally, Eugene E. Fleece Ph.D, a State agency physician, stated in his “Mental Summary” of Gay that “[w]e don’t have any reason to think there is anything substantial to evaluate in terms of down memory, so would not suggest a CE.” Dr. Fleece also discounted Gay’s 2007 automobile accident as a cause of any “cognitive damage” because there were no records of such impairment over the last two years. Dr. Fleece noted Gay’s “vague” complaints of memory, understanding and dealing with others, but concluded he “does not sound withdrawn” because he cooks out with friends, watches games, and has a fianceé. Moreover, Dr. Fleece was unimpressed by Gay’s claim of confusion with changes, noting “he handles money well in all areas.” Accordingly, the court concludes because substantial evidence exists to support the ALJ’s conclusion that Gay’s allegations of mental problems were not supported by the record, the ALJ’s failure to include a PRTF, was harmless error and is not a ground for reversal of the ALJ’s decision. 
The ALJ did not commit reversible error by considering past relevant work that was not substantial, gainful activity.
Gay’s earnings record demonstrates that he did not earn at least an average of $500.00 per month from 1991 to 1998. According to regulations, “past relevant work” is described as work Plaintiff performed within the past fifteen years that was substantial, gainful activity and lasted long enough for the claimant to learn to do it. Generally, monthly earnings do not qualify as substantial gainful activity when Plaintiff earned less than or equal to $500.00 per month between January 1990 and June 1999. 
The Commissioner admits that the ALJ erred in concluding that Gay’s work within the past 15 years was “past relevant work” as defined under the Act. The court concludes, however, that this error was harmless because the ALJ made an alternative finding at step five. Specifically, the ALJ found that on the basis of Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity for a full range of medium work, Medical-Vocational Rule 203.19 allowed for the determination that Plaintiff was not disabled.  The burden of showing that an error is harmful normally falls upon the party attacking the agency’s determination. When an incorrect application of the regulations results in harmless error because the correct application would not alter the ALJ’s ultimate conclusion, there is no basis for reversal. Thus, the court concludes the ALJ did not commit reversible error by considering past relevant work that was not substantial, gainful activity.

The ALJ did not commit reversible error by relying on the testimony of the Vocational Expert.
Gay argues that the ALJ erred in relying on the testimony of Mr. Sweeney, the VE, because it does not support the ALJ’s decision. Specifically, Gay argues that the ALJ quoted the VE as testifying that “claimant was able to return to all of this past relevant work within his [RFC]. Gay, however, also points out that the VE noted he was unsure that Gay’s “past relevant work” qualified as “substantial gainful employment.” For the reasons stated supra the court concludes that any alleged error based on analysis involving Gay’s “past relevant work” is harmless because of the ALJ’s alterative finding that Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity for a full range of medium work allowed for the determination that Plaintiff was not disabled pursuant to Medical-Vocational Rule 203.19. 
Next, Gay points to the following hypothetical as further evidence that the ALJ erred in relying on the testimony of the VE.
THE COURT: Consider a hypothetical individual with the same age, education, and work experience as the claimant who has the physical capabilities and limitations as testified to by the claimant. Can such a hypothetical individual do any competitive work?
SWEENEY: Well, based on his testimony, the thing that would come to my attention most is the pain, the reported pain level of 10, which at that level, taking that at face value, that would preclude employment, but nothing else that I heard really.
  The court recognizes that the VE accepted Gay’s “reported pain level of 10 . . . at face value” in concluding that an individual who experiences such pain would be unable to work.  However, the ALJ made no reference to this statement in his opinion; nor did anyone further question the VE as to whether the entire record supported Gay’s statements of disabling pain. Thus, the hypothetical is limited to the assumption made by the VE based on the “face value” of Gay’s complaints of pain and does not include any assessment of Gay’s credibility.
If proof of disability is based upon subjective evidence and a credibility determination is critical to the decision, “the ALJ must either explicitly discredit such testimony or the implication must be so clear as to amount to a specific credibility finding.”  The reasons given for discrediting pain testimony must be based on substantial evidence. Thus, the court now turns its attention to the ALJ’s conclusion with respect to Gay’s allegations of pain and the reasons for that conclusion.

The ALJ concluded “[a]fter careful consideration of the evidence” that Gay’s
“medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms; however, the claimant’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not credible to the extent they are inconsistent with the above residual functional capacity assessment.”
In support of this conclusion, the ALJ pointed to Gay’s own testimony and to various medical facts and opinions in the record. With respect to the headaches, the ALJ recognized that Gay reported some limitations on his daily routine, but noted that Gay is able to cook out with friends, watch sports, and is engaged. Furthermore, the ALJ assigned “significant weight” to the assessment of Dr. Fleece, consultative expert, who opined that Gay “was not cognitively impaired.”  Additionally, the ALJ assigned “great weight” to the opinions and findings of consultative examiner, Dr. Colley, who reported Gay’s “examination was essentially unremarkable.” Dr. Colley further noted Gay “had full range of motion of all extremities with no deformities . . . normal gait, normal station and normal coordination.” Finally, the ALJ recognized that Gay “has not required hospitalizations or emergency room visits for any of his impairments”; and “[i]n fact, there is little medical evidence to support his allegations.” Accordingly, the court finds that the ALJ “explicitly” discredited Gay’s allegations of pain, and the reasons given by the ALJ are supported by “substantial evidence”. Thus, the court concludes that in the context of this case the ALJ did not err in the limited use of the VE’s testimony.
VII. CONCLUSION
Pursuant to the findings and conclusions detailed in this Memorandum Opinion, the Court concludes that the ALJ’s non-disability determination is supported by substantial evidence and proper application of the law. It is, therefore, ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. A separate judgment is entered herewith.
Categories: Social Security Cases | Tags: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

How Much Can My Attorney Charge Me If I Win My Social Security Benefits Case?

Posted on March 29, 2012 by Judge London Steverson

BLACK v. CULBERTSON

DENNIS W. BLACK  v. RICHARD A. CULBERTSON, His Former Attorney and  COMMISSIONER Michael Astrue.

 

Before EDMONDSON, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

 

 


Dennis W. Black, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court‘s order granting his lawyer’s petition for authorization to charge Black reasonable attorney’s fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). 
Black, represented by his lawyer Richard Culbertson, filed a complaint in the district court, seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision denying his application for social security disability insurance (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI). The district court ruled in Black’s favor, reversing the Commissioner’s final decision and remanding the case for additional proceedings. The court also granted Black’s petition for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), and directed the Commissioner to pay Culbertson $4,584.02 in attorney’s fees.
After the Commissioner awarded Black past-due benefits on remand, Culbertson filed a petition seeking authorization to charge Black reasonable attorney’s fees under section 406(b) for his representation in the district court. Culbertson attached a contingency fee agreement in which Black agreed to pay Culbertson 25% of his past-due benefits if the district court reversed or remanded the Commissioner’s denial of benefits and if Black was then awarded past-due benefits. The agreement also provided that, if the court awarded attorney’s fees under the EAJA, the amount of the EAJA award would be subtracted from the amount Black owed Culbertson based on his past-due benefits award. In a second amended report and recommendation (“R&R”), the magistrate judge recommended that the court authorize Culbertson to charge Black $25,769.49 in reasonable attorney’s fees, consistent with the terms of the contingency fee agreement. The district court overruled Black’s objections and adopted the magistrate’s second amended R&R.
On appeal, Black argues that the district court erred in granting Culbertson’s petition for authorization to charge reasonable attorney’s fees. We review an award of attorney’s fees for an abuse of discretion.
A district court may award reasonable attorney’s fees as part of its judgment in favor of a Social Security claimant who was represented by a lawyer.  The attorney’s fee may not be more than “25 percent of the total of the past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled by reason of such judgment,” and the court must determine whether the requested fee is reasonable based on the services rendered. Id. If an attorney receives attorney’s fee under both the EAJA and section 406(b), he must refund the smaller fee to his client, but “may choose to effectuate the refund by deducting the amount of an earlier EAJA award from his subsequent [section] 406(b) fee request.” Id. at 1274.
On remand from the district court, the Commissioner awarded Black a total of $129,672 in past-due Social Security benefits. Pursuant to the contingency fee agreement between Black and Culbertson, Culbertson’s fee for a successful suit would equal 25% of Black’s past-due benefits award ($32,418) minus the amount Culbertson received in EAJA awards (totaling $6,648.51), which amounted to $25,769.49. This fee is consistent with the parties’ agreement and with the statutory limitations. In addition, the district court determined — and Black does not dispute — that this fee was reasonable based on Culbertson’s representation. Thus, we see no abuse of discretion in the district court’s award of attorney’s fees.

AFFIRMED.
Categories: Social Security Cases | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

A Low IQ Score May Qualify You For Social Security Benefits.

Posted on March 27, 2012 by Judge London Steverson

SLATER v. ASTRUE

March 23, 2012.

Demon Victorell Slater, Plaintiff, represented by Quinn Eric Brock, Brock & Stout.
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant, represented by Dorrelyn K Dietrich, Social Security Admin, Office of General Counsel Region VIII, John Jay Lee, Social Security Administration, & Robert Randolph Neeley, U.S. Attorney’s Office.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
TERRY F. MOORER, Magistrate Judge.
Demon V. Slater (“Plaintiff” or “Slater”) originally applied for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381 et seq., on August 23, 2007. After being denied, Slater timely filed for and received a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ“) who rendered an unfavorable decision on February 18, 2010. Slater subsequently petitioned for review to the Appeals Council who rejected review of Slater’s case on March 17, 2011.  As a result, the ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”). Id. Judicial review proceeds pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). After a thorough review of the record in this case and the briefs of the parties, the Court concludes that the decision of the Commissioner should be REVERSED and this case REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings.
I. NATURE OF THE CASE
Slater seeks judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits. United States District Courts may conduct limited review of such decisions to determine whether they comply with applicable law and are supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405. The court may affirm, reverse and remand with instructions, or reverse and render a judgment. Id.
The Court’s review of the Commissioner’s decision is a limited one. The Court’s sole function is to determine whether the ALJ’s opinion is supported by substantial evidence and whether the proper legal standards were applied. 
“The Social Security Act mandates that `findings of the Secretary as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive.'” Thus, this Court must find the Commissioner’s decision conclusive if it is supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla — i.e., the evidence must do more than merely create a suspicion of the existence of a fact, and must include such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support the conclusion.
If the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, the district court will affirm, even if the court would have reached a contrary result as finder of fact, and even if the evidence preponderates against the Commissioner’s findings. The Court “may not decide facts anew, re-weigh the evidence, or substitute [its] judgment for that of the [Commissioner],” but rather it “must defer to the Commissioner’s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence.” 
The Court will also reverse a Commissioner’s decision on plenary review if the decision applies incorrect law, or if the decision fails to provide the district court with sufficient reasoning to determine that the Commissioner properly applied the law.
III. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The Social Security Act’s general disability insurance benefits program (“DIB“) provides income to individuals who are forced into involuntary, premature retirement, provided they are both insured and disabled, regardless of indigence. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(a). The Social Security Act’s Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) is a separate and distinct program. SSI is a general public assistance measure providing an additional resource to the aged, blind, and disabled to assure that their income does not fall below the poverty line. Eligibility for SSI is based upon proof of indigence and disability.  However, despite the fact they are separate programs, the law and regulations governing a claim for DIB and a claim for SSI are identical; therefore, claims for DIB and SSI are treated identically for the purpose of determining whether a claimant is disabled.  Applicants under DIB and SSI must provide “disability” within the meaning of the Social Security Act which defines disability in virtually identical language for both programs.  A person is entitled to disability benefits when the person is unable 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.
A “physical or mental impairment” is one resulting from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.
The Commissioner of Social Security employs a five-step, sequential evaluation process to determine whether a claimant is entitled to benefits. 
(1) Is the person presently unemployed?
(2) Is the person’s impairment(s) severe?
(3) Does the person’s impairment(s) meet or equal one of the specific impairments set forth in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1?3
(4) Is the person unable to perform his or her former occupation?
(5) Is the person unable to perform any other work within the economy?
An affirmative answer to any of the questions leads either to the next question, or, on steps three and five, to a finding of disability. A negative answer to any question, other than step three, leads to a determination of “not disabled.”
The burden of proof rests on a claimant through Step 4.  Claimants establish a prima facie case of qualifying disability once they meet the burden of proof from Step 1 through Step 4. At Step 5, the burden shifts to the Commissioner, who must then show there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy the claimant can perform. Id.
To perform the fourth and fifth steps, the ALJ must determine the claimant’s Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”). Id. at 1238-39. RFC is what the claimant is still able to do despite his impairments and is based on all relevant medical and other evidence. Id. It also can contain both exertional and nonexertional limitations. Id. at 1242-43. At the fifth step, the ALJ considers the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience to determine if there are jobs available in the national economy the claimant can perform. Id. at 1239. To do this, the ALJ can either use the Medical Vocational Guidelines (“grids”) or hear testimony from a vocational expert (VE). Id. at 1239-40.
The grids allow the ALJ to consider factors such as age, confinement to sedentary or light work, inability to speak English, educational deficiencies, and lack of job experience. Each factor can independently limit the number of jobs realistically available to an individual. Id. at 1240. Combinations of these factors yield a statutorily-required finding of “Disabled” or “Not Disabled.” Id.
IV. ADMINISTRATIVE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Slater, age 36 at the time of the hearing, completed the twelfth grade and received a certificate of completion. Slater had special education classes in high school and has limited reading and writing abilities. Slater performed past relevant work as an industrial cleaner (unskilled, medium). Slater has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since his alleged disability onset date of August 23, 2007. Slater has not “ever really worked,” except for a couple positions which spans from a few days to a few weeks. Slater’s mother supports him from her fixed income. Slater claims he is unable to work because he suffers from major depression, anxiety, diabetes, depression, and an IQ score that falls within the range of mental retardation.  Slater received disability benefits in the past until the benefits were terminated upon his incarceration.
Slater’s alleged disabilities stem from multiple sources.A doctor diagnosed Slater as suffering from diabetes in 1997. He received regular treatment to control his diabetes, while he received disability benefits and also while incarcerated, but upon release Slater has been unable to afford his medications except when he was able to attain his medications free of charge. Id. Slater alleges that his diabetes has caused him to be admitted to the hospital and the doctors have had to increase his insulin dosage. Slater alleges that he has diabetic neuropathy which causes pain and numbness in his lower legs, feet, and sometimes in his left hand. Id. Slater also alleges that he suffers from hypertension (high blood pressure). Id. Slater is also unable to afford the medications to control his neuropathy and hypertension.
Since Slater’s release from incarceration, he alleges that he suffers from anxiety and major depression. Slater alleges that his anxiety and depression cause him to randomly begin crying, to feel shortness of breath and pain in his chest, and difficulty sleeping. Slater claims that when on his medication these symptoms subside and he is able to sleep well, but at the moment he is unable to afford his medications. Slater also claims that he has difficulty getting along with other people and mostly keeps to himself. Slater alleges that he suffers from mental retardation as defined in the listings of impairments section 12.05. IQ tests reveal Slater has a score of 64 in verbal intelligence IQ, 62 in performance IQ, and a full scale IQ of 60.  Slater was in special education classes in high school and alleges that he cannot read or spell very well.  Slater also claims that while watching television he is unable to concentrate or follow the storyline.
Slater received treatment from various medical practitioners and the ALJ considered the medical records from these practitioners.  The records of Charles A. Wood, M.D. from September and October of 2002 show that Slater was monitored for hypertension, diabetes, and peripheral neuropathy.  Slater had elevated glucose and hemoglobin A1C levels. Id. Also, Dr. Woods found Slater suffers from depression post a suicide attempt. 
In November of 2007, Mark B. Ellis, D.O. performed a consultative physical evaluation. Id. Slater reported to Dr. Ellis that he sufferes from depression, poor reading skills, diabetes, neuropathy with bilateral leg burning and numbness, decreased sensation to light touch in the feet, and leg weakness.  Dr. Ellis found decreased sensation to light touch from Slater’s knees down “becoming more prominent” at the feet, as well as decreased sensation on the bottom and back of Slater’s feet. Dr. Ellis’ diagnostic impression was “poorly controlled diabetes with diabetic neuropathy; and hypertension, high cholesterol, and depression all by history.” Dr. Ellis recommended optimal diabetic care; however, a month later Slater was admitted to Dale Medical Center for uncontrolled diabetes mellitus with a glucose level of 700, blurred vision, nausea, vomiting, hypertension, and neuropathy. 
Also in November of 2007, Randall Jordan, Psy.D saw Slater for a consultative mental evaluation. Slater reported depression with chronic sadness, sleep disturbances, and being in special education classes while in school. Id. Dr. Jordan noted that Slater exhibited restricted affect, compromised memory, and below average fund of information. Dr. Jordan administered a Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Third Edition (“Wechsler”) which tested Slater on verbal, performance, and full scale IQ. Slater earned scores of 64, 62, and 60, respectively. Dr. Jordan noted that these scores are indicative of intellect in the range of mental retardation. Id. However, Dr. Jordan also noted a diagnostic impression of malingering.
In June of 2009, Slater returned to Dale Medical Center with complaints of chest pain. In July of 2009, Slater underwent a stress test which revealed “resting baseline hypertensive heart disease and a marked accelerated hypertensive response to chemical stress.”  After being released from Dale Medical Center, Connie Chandler, M.D. followed Slater for chest pain, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia.  Slater received numerous medications to control his symptoms. Id. The ALJ noted that no noticeable physical symptoms or complications associated with hyperlipidemia were evidenced, and because of such the ALJ found that it has no effect on Slater’s ability to work.  In August of 2009, Dr. Fernando Lopez at Spectra Care saw Slater for his “depressive disorder” and “psychotic features.”  Slater claimed he had “sleep disturbances with intermittent nightmares, visual hallucinations, panic attacks, nervousness, and paranoia.” Id. Dr. Lopez proscribed psychotropic medications to Slater to manage his depressive and psychotic symptoms. Id.
V. ISSUES
Slater raises two issues for judicial review:
(1) Whether the ALJ failed to consider if Slater’s medically determinable impairments met or equaled listing 12.05(C); and
(2) Whether the ALJ’s Residual Functional Capacity finding failed to include the required “function-by-function” assessment. See Doc. 12 at 3.
VI. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The plaintiff raises several issues and arguments related to this Court’s ultimate inquiry of whether the Commissioner’s disability decision is supported by the proper legal standards and substantial evidence.  “[n]o presumption of validity attaches to the Secretary’s determination of the proper legal standards to be applied in evaluating claims”). However, the Court pretermits discussion of the plaintiff’s specific arguments because the Court concludes that the ALJ erred as a matter of law at step three of the sequential analysis. Ergo, the ALJ’s conclusion that the plaintiff is not disabled is not supported by substantial evidence.
The ALJ notes:
At step three, the undersigned must determine whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals the criteria of an impairment listed in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 416.920(d), 416.925, and 416.926). If the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals the criteria of a listing and meets the duration requirement (20 CFR 416.909, the claimant is disabled.
The burden of proof rests on a claimant to establish a prima facie case of qualifying disability. Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1237-39. Slater argues that “the ALJ failed to consider whether Mr. Slater’s medically determinable impairments met or equaled listing 12.05(C).” (Pl. Br. 3). Slater provided sufficient medical evidence to meet the prima facie requirement in Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1237-39. The record is replete with references to anxiety and depression, with the ALJ also noting the “full scale IQ scores of 64, 62, and 60.”  Plaintiff directly argues the listing of 12.05(C) in the record of the hearing as well as testifying to other limiting factors.
In Fitts v. Massanari, the court “notes that the ALJ made an error more fundamental regarding the listings in that he never once mentioned Listing 12.05, specifically 12.05(C), in his decision denying benefits.”  The court held that the ALJ erred in failing to include mild mental retardation in the list of severe impairments and in failing to analyze the evidence in light of the specific requirements of listing 12.05. Id. at *2. In Fitts the court noted that the ALJ’s finding documented both a physical impairment which imposed an “additional and significant work-related limitation of function” and that the record also contained evidence of a valid verbal, performance or full scale IQ score of 60 through 70. Id.
The Court recognizes that a valid IQ score does not mean that conclusive evidence of mental retardation exists, however the validity of IQ score must be addressed by the ALJ. Thomas v. Barnhart,  (11th Cir. Dec. 7, 2004)(where the Eleventh Circuit specifically noted that the ALJ did not specifically address the validity of the claimant’s IQ score of 69 and there was “significant evidence” that the score was valid and remanded the case so that the ALJ may properly consider the validity of the claimant’s IQ score.). While the Court concludes there is some question as to the validity and accuracy of the IQ score of Slater, there is no analysis done by the ALJ for the Court to consider. See e.g. Outlaw v. Barnhart, 197 Fed.Appx. 825 (11th Cir. 2006) (where the court held that a “valid IQ score is not conclusive of mental retardation when the IQ score is inconsistent with other evidence in the record about claimant’s daily activities.”).
The Commissioner argues that Slater did not carry his burden to produce evidence that he met the criteria of the listing. (Def. Br. 13, at 7). “[A] claimant must have a diagnosis included in the Listings and must provide medial reports documenting that the conditions meet the specific criteria of the Listings and the duration requirement.”  The ALJ must consider whether the claimant meets or equals the listings presented by the claimant.  While the ALJ does not need to mechanically recite the fact that a claimant does not meet a listing in his decision, and that the failure to meet the listing may be implied from the record, the ALJ must develop a full and fair record sufficient for this Court to review.  Additionally, the Court notes that Slater bears a burden “of proving that he is disabled, and consequently, he is responsible for producing evidence in support of his claim.” The Court makes the limited ruling that the issue of mental retardation pursuant to the listing 12.05(C) was raised sufficiently by Slater to show a prima facie case of a possible ailment that, by itself, can be found to be disabling, or disabling in conjunction with other disabilities, and the ALJ failed to address it in either the hearing or the opinion.  The Court notes that the ALJ directly addressed and discussed the Listings for 12.04 and 12.06, looking at the “paragraph B” and “paragraph C” requirements, but conspicuously failed to address the 12.05(C) Listing that was directly argued by the Claimant.
Furthermore, because the ALJ did not recognize the evidence that Slater suffers from mental retardation, he did not properly consider the effects of this impairment on Slater’s ability to work. Consequently, the Court cannot determine whether the ALJ’s conclusion that Slater is not disabled is properly supported by substantial evidence.  It is plain that the plaintiff suffers from physical and non-physical impairments, but it is less clear as to the effect of those impairments. “Even a `mild’ mental impairment may `prevent [a] claimant from engaging in the full range of jobs contemplated by the exertional category for which the claimant otherwise qualifies.'” 
For these reasons, the Court concludes that the Commissioner erred as a matter of law, and that the case warrants remand for further proceedings regarding whether the IQ score is valid, and if there are other mental or physical impairments that would cause the claimant to meet the listing under 12.05(C). The ALJ must consider every impairment alleged by the plaintiff and determine whether the alleged impairments are sufficiently severe — either singly or in combination — to create a disability.  All of the plaintiff’s impairments must be considered in combination even when the impairments considered separately are not severe. In light of the ALJ’s failure to fully and fairly consider the evidence in the record of the plaintiff’s possible mental retardation, the Court concludes that the ALJ failed to meet his burden in this regard. As a result of his failure to consider the plaintiff’s impairments in combination, doubt is necessarily cast upon the ALJ’s conclusion that the plaintiff is not disabled.
V. ConclusionAccordingly, this case will be reversed and remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. A separate order will be entered.
Categories: Social Security Cases | Tags: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Social Security Judge Can Tell When A Claimant Lies Under Oath.

Posted on March 23, 2012 by Judge London Steverson

GORREMANS v. ASTRUE

United States District Court, D. Idaho. March 16, 2012.

Mickael Gorrmans, Plaintiff, represented by Louis Garbrecht.
Commissioner Michael J. Astrue, Defendant, represented by Benjamin J Groebner, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION & Joanne P Rodriguez, US ATTORNEY’S OFFICE.

 

 

RONALD E. BUSH, Magistrate Judge.
Now pending before the Court is Petitioner Mickael Gorremans’ Petition for Review filed September 16, 2010, seeking review of the Social Security Administration’s final decision to deny his disability benefits. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Having carefully reviewed the record and otherwise being fully advised, the Court enters the following Memorandum Decision and Order.
I. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
On January 9, 2009, Mickael Gorremans (“Petitioner”) applied for SSI disability benefits, alleging a disability onset date of December 24, 2008, when he was 56 years old.  Petitioner’s claim was initially denied and, again, denied on reconsideration. Petitioner timely filed a Request for Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”).  On February 9, 2010, ALJ James W. Sherry held a hearing in Spokane, Washington at which time Petitioner, represented by attorney Louis Garbrecht, appeared and testified.  A vocational expert, K. Diane Kramer, also appeared and testified.  At the time of the hearing, Petitioner had past relevant work as a groundskeeper, machine operator, janitor, floor cleaner/buffer, certified nurses assistant, and home health aide.
On April 8, 2010, the ALJ issued a decision, denying Petitioner’s claims, finding that Petitioner was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.  Petitioner timely requested review from the Appeals Council on June 3, 2010. The Appeals Council then denied review on August 23, 2010  rendering the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision. Plaintiff now seeks judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits. Petitioner contends the ALJ erred by not giving controlling weight to the opinion of his treating physician, Dr. Dirks, and improperly rejecting Petitioner’s own testimony. He also argues that the residual functional capacity finding is not supported by the record and that Medical-Vocational Guideline 202.06 directs a finding of disabled.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

To be upheld, the Commissioner’s decision must be supported by substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Findings as to any question of fact, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). In other words, if there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s factual decisions, they must be upheld, even when there is conflicting evidence. 
“Substantial evidence” is defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.  The standard requires more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance, and “does not mean a large or considerable amount of evidence.”
With respect to questions of fact, the role of the Court is to review the record as a whole to determine whether it contains evidence that would allow a reasonable mind to accept the conclusions of the ALJ.  The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility and resolving conflicts in medical testimony, resolving ambiguities, and drawing inferences logically flowing from the evidence. Where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation in a disability proceeding, the reviewing court may not substitute its judgment or interpretation of the record for that of the ALJ. 
With respect to questions of law, the ALJ’s decision must be based on proper legal standards and will be reversed for legal error. Matney, 981 F.2d at 1019. The ALJ’s construction of the Social Security Act is entitled to deference if it has a reasonable basis in law. See id. However, reviewing federal courts “will not rubber-stamp an administrative decision that is inconsistent with the statutory mandate or that frustrates the congressional purpose underlying the statute.” 
III. DISCUSSION
A. Sequential Process
In evaluating the evidence presented at an administrative hearing, the ALJ must follow a sequential process in determining whether a person is disabled in general (see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920) — or continues to be disabled (see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1594, 416.994) — within the meaning of the Social Security Act.
The first step requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity (“SGA”). 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(I), 416.920(a)(4)(I). SGA is defined as work activity that is both substantial and gainful. “Substantial work activity” is work activity that involves doing significant physical or mental activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1572(a), 416.972(a). “Gainful work activity” is work that is usually done for pay or profit, whether or not a profit is realized. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1572(b), 416.972(b). If the claimant has engaged in SGA, disability benefits are denied, regardless of how severe her physical/mental impairments are and regardless of her age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). If the claimant is not engaged in SGA, the analysis proceeds to the second step. Here, the ALJ found that Petitioner had not engaged in SGA since January 9, 2009, the application date. (AR 16).
The second step requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment, or combination of impairments, that is severe and meets the duration requirement. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). An impairment or combination of impairments is “severe” within the meaning of the Social Security Act if it significantly limits an individual’s ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). An impairment or combination of impairments is “not severe” when medical and other evidence establish only a slight abnormality or a combination of slight abnormalities that would have no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1521, 416.921. If the claimant does not have a severe medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments, disability benefits are denied. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). Here, the ALJ found that Petitioner had the following severe impairments: “multilevel cervical degenerative disk disease with facet arthrosis, status post disectomy and fusion and cervical laminectomy at C3 & C4 with autograft; and central cord syndrome.” (AR 16).
The third step requires the ALJ to determine the medical severity of any impairments; that is, whether the claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment under 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If the answer is yes, the claimant is considered disabled under the Social Security Act and benefits are awarded. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). If the claimant’s impairments neither meet nor equal one of the listed impairments, the claimant’s case cannot be resolved at step three and the evaluation proceeds to step four. Id. Here, the ALJ concluded that Petitioner does not have an impairment (or combination of impairments) that meets or medically equals a listed impairment (AR 16).
The fourth step of the evaluation process requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant’s residual functional capacity is sufficient for the claimant to perform past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv). An individual’s residual functional capacity is her ability to do physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis despite limitations from her impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945. Likewise, an individual’s past relevant work is work performed within the last 15 years or 15 years prior to the date that disability must be established; also, the work must have lasted long enough for the claimant to learn to do the job and be engaged in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1560(b), 404.1565, 416.960(b), 416.965. Here, the ALJ ruled that Petitioner has the residual functional capacity to perform the full range of medium work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(c). The ALJ also determined that Petitioner could perform his past relevant work as a janitor, certified nurse’s assistant, home health aide, and groundskeeper. The ALJ determined that this work does not require performance of work-related activities precluded by Petitioner’s residual functional capacity. (AR 21).
In the fifth and final step, if it has been established that a claimant can no longer perform past relevant work because of his impairments, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that the claimant retains the ability to do alternate work and to demonstrate that such alternate work exists in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v), 404.1520(f), 416.920(f); see also Matthews v. Shalala, 10 F.3d 678, 681 (9th Cir. 1993). If the claimant is able to do other work, he is not disabled; if the claimant is not able to do other work and meets the duration requirement, he is disabled. Because the ALJ found Petitioner capable of performing past relevant work, he did not have to proceed to step five. However, the ALJ did found that even if Petitioner was restricted to less than a full range of light work, there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the regional and national economies, of cleaner I and electronics assembler, that Petitioner could perform. (AR 21).
B. Analysis
1. Petitioner Credibility
Petitioner contends that the ALJ gave insufficient reasons for rejecting his testimony. In his opinion, the ALJ stated the claimant’s statements concerning the “intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not credible to the extent they are inconsistent with the above residual functional capacity assessment.” The ALJ further stated that the objective evidence established that Petitioner is capable of performing basic work activities. The ALJ remarked that Petitioner did not follow through with physical therapy as recommended by his treating physician, Dr. Dirks, because he could not afford it and that he only medicates his pain with over-the-counter medications every other day. The ALJ also noted that while the claimant described daily activities which are fairly limited, great weight was not given to this evidence because the “allegedly limited daily activities cannot be objectively verified with any reasonable degree of certainty” and because of the difficulty attributing “that degree of limitation to the claimant’s medical condition, as opposed to other reasons, in view of the relatively weak medical evidence . . .”  The ALJ further concluded:
The claimant’s statements on the function report are not entirely credible. He said he can perform his personal care slowly. He is able to prepare simple meals. He claims he is fairly limited in several areas as a result of paralysis. He claimed he cannot do any housework, he cannot drive, and he cannot handle money. He also stated that he is under doctor’s orders to not go outside. There is no evidence in the record of continued paralysis in the upper extremities. The treatment notes show the claimant’s strength in his upper extremities has continued to improve (at least 4/5 strength). Furthermore, there is no reference in the treatment record to any doctor directing the claimant to not go outside. The claimant testified he has problems gripping and grasping items with his hands; however, after the first surgery, it is noted to have improved (4/5 strength after first surgery). Furthermore, this testimony is not consistent with the claimant’s testimony that he is able to fish, which shows he is able to hold on to a fishing pole and reel in a fishing line, which requires an ability to grip and grasp items.
The claimant testified he has difficult reaching overhead, but there is no indication in the treatment notes of any limitations in this area. There are no range of motion tests and no significant signs of weakness. The claimant asserted he has problems with stairs; however, he also said he has several flights of stairs at home to climb and descend. This suggests the claimant is able to climb and descend stairs with little difficulty. The bulk of treatment notes do not support the claimant’s assertions regarding his limitations in walking and standing. It has been noted the claimant has no difficult with ambulation. Finally, the claimant stated he can only sit for no more than ½ hour; yet, the hearing lasted longer than ½ hour and the claimant showed no signs of needing to change positions.
(AR 19-20).
The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in medical testimony, and for resolving ambiguities.  The ALJ’s findings must be supported by specific, cogent reasons.  If a claimant produces objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment, an ALJ may not reject a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain based solely on lack of medical evidence.  Unless there is affirmative evidence of malingering, the ALJ must provide clear and convincing reasons for rejecting pain testimony. The reasons an ALJ gives for rejecting a claimant’s testimony must be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
In evaluating credibility, the ALJ may engage in ordinary techniques of credibility evaluation, including consideration of a claimant’s reputation for truthfulness and inconsistencies in claimant’s testimony, or between claimant’s testimony and conduct, as well as claimant’s daily activities, claimant’s work record and testimony from physicians and third parties concerning the nature, severity and effect of the symptoms of which claimant complains.  Also, the ALJ may consider: location, duration and frequency of symptoms; factors that precipitate and aggravate those symptoms; amount and side effects of medications; and treatment measures taken by claimant to alleviate those symptoms. See Soc. Sec. Ruling (SSR) 96-7p. Here, the ALJ focused on inconsistencies in claimant’s testimony as well as between his claimed limitations and the support for those limitations in the medical record. The ALJ noted that while Petitioner claimed to have great difficulty grasping and gripping many everyday items, he also testified that he would go fishing which would be inconsistent with the claimed limitations.1 Additionally, the ALJ remarked that although Petitioner stated he could not sit for longer than 20 to 30 minutes at a time, the hearing lasted longer than 30 minutes and he did not appear to need to switch positions. The ALJ also observed that Petitioner testified to extreme limitations in his upper extremities as well as with walking and standing, yet the medical evidence demonstrated improved strength (at least 4/5) in his upper extremities after his surgeries and indicated no problems with ambulation. While lack of medical evidence cannot be the sole reason for rejecting pain testimony, “medical evidence is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of the claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.”  The ALJ also focused on treatment measures taken by Petitioner, which he testified was to use over-the-counter pain medication every other day. Over-the-counter pain medication is an example of “evidence of `conservative treatment'” that “is sufficient to discount a claimant’s testimony regarding severity of an impairment.” 
Where, as here, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s credibility finding, the Court will not engage in second-guessing.  In other words, if the evidence can support either outcome, the Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ. The Court reviews the administrative record as a whole to determine whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision.  The issue is not whether the Court agrees with the ALJ’s credibility assessment, but whether the assessment is supported by the requisite findings and record evidence. Here, it is, and the Court will not substitute its own assessment for that of the ALJ.
2. Treating Physician’s Opinion
Petitioner argues that the ALJ improperly rejected the opinion of his treating physician, Dr. Dirks, by relying on the opinion of a non-examining physician.
Ninth Circuit case law distinguishes among the opinions of three types of physicians: (1) those who treat the claimant (treating physicians); (2) those who examine but do not treat the claimant (examining physicians); and (3) those who neither examine nor treat the claimant (nonexamining physicians).  Generally, more weight is accorded to the opinion of a treating source than to nontreating physicians.  In turn, an examining physician’s opinion is entitled to greater weight than the opinion of a nonexamining physician.  If the treating physician’s opinion is not contradicted by another doctor, it may be rejected only for “clear and convincing” reasons. If the treating doctor’s opinion is contradicted by another doctor, the Commissioner may not reject the treating physician’s opinion without providing “specific and legitimate reasons” supported by substantial evidence in the record for doing so. 
An ALJ is not required to accept an opinion of a treating physician if it is conclusory and not supported by clinical findings.  Additionally, an ALJ is not bound to a physician’s opinion of a petitioner’s physical condition or the ultimate issue of disability.  If the record as a whole does not support the physician’s opinion, the ALJ may reject that opinion.  Items in the record that may not support the physician’s opinion include clinical findings from examinations, conflicting medical opinions, conflicting physician’s treatment notes, and the claimant’s daily activities. 
The ALJ provides a detailed description of Petitioner’s medical records, which come from his treating surgeon, Dr. Dirks. On January 27, 2009, following Petitioner’s second surgery, Dr. Dirks stated that Petitioner was not released back to work and the issue should be reevaluated in three months.  On April 9, 2009, he opined that Petitioner was “disabled and unable to return to work at this stage.”  On November 3, 2009, the last treatment note from Dr. Dirks, he stated that he supported Petitioner in his quest for obtaining Social Security disability as he did “not believe he will be able to have gainful employment at this time.” (AR 304).
In regard to Dr. Dirks’ opinions as to disability, the ALJ gave his opinion little weight and stated:
Dr. Dirks provides no range of motion testing in the treatment notes. His treatment notes show the claimant’s condition has improved after both surgeries. Muscle strength testing shows the claimant has at least 4/5 strength in the upper extremities. There is no evidence of ongoing paralysis in the upper extremities. Although the doctor stated the claimant is `disabled,’ it is not clear that the doctor was familiar with the definition of `disability’ contained in the Social Security Act and regulations. The possibility always exists that a doctor may express an opinion in an effort to assist a patient with whom he or she sympathizes for one reason or another. Another reality which should be mentioned is that patients can be quite insistent and demanding in seeking supportive notes or reports from their physicians, who might provide such a note in order to satisfy their patient’s requests and avoid unnecessary doctor/patient tension. While it is difficult to confirm the presence of such motives, they are more likely in situations where the opinion in question departs substantially from the rest of the evidence of record, as in the current case.
While a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to great weight, the ALJ is not bound by his or her opinion on the ultimate issue of disability.  This is especially true if the opinion is conclusory and not supported by the clinical findings.  The ALJ does not discount the medical records from Dr. Dirks, instead he provides a thorough discussion of Petitioner’s medical history.  However, the ALJ found that Dr. Dirks’ opinion of disability departed “substantially” from the rest of the evidence in the record and conflicted with his own treatment notes and the clinical findings.  Under the Social Security regulations, the ALJ is not required to follow a treating physician’s opinion that a claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(e)(1). Additionally, these opinions of treating physicians are not entitled to any special significance. Id. at § 416.927(e)(3). Lastly, while, as Petitioner contends, the ALJ did give significance to the Physical Residual Functional Capacity Assessment completed by a non-examining physician, this assessment was not used as a basis for rejecting Dr. Dirks’ opinion on disability. Instead, the ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons for giving Dr. Dirks’ opinion regarding disability little weight.
3. Residual Functional Capacity Finding
Petitioner contends there is not substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s finding of a medium residual functional capacity. A claimant’s residual functional capacity is the most he can do despite his limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). An ALJ considers all relevant evidence in the record when making this determination. Id. The regulations define “medium work” as “lifting no more than 50 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 25 pounds.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(c).
In finding that the Petitioner could perform the full range of medium work, the ALJ relied, in part, on the opinions of two non-examining state agency physicians who reviewed the medical record and opined that Petitioner could perform medium work. (AR 286-98, 299). Petitioner contends that the ALJ should not rely on these opinions because they were made without the November 3, 2009 treatment note of Dr. Dirks which stated that he “continued to show signs and symptoms of central cord syndrome” and that he “continues to exhibit poor walking ability and poor strength.” (AR 304). Although the ALJ gave “significant weight” to the assessment of the state agency physician, Dr. Dickey, this was not the only evidence he relied upon in forming his assessment. The ALJ also evaluated the medical evidence from Dr. Dirks, including this November 3, 2009 treatment note, and Petitioner’s own testimony.  See Batson v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1197 (9th Cir. 2004) (finding the ALJ was not required to incorporate opinion evidence which was permissibly discounted). The ALJ commented on the November 3, 2009 treatment note and remarked that other treatment notes found “claimant’s strength was measured as at least 4/5 and it has been noted the claimant’s ambulation is good.” (AR 19). The ALJ has considered all the relevant evidence in making his residual functional capacity finding and it is supported by substantial evidence.
Although it was not raised by Petitioner, when evaluating the ALJ’s residual functional capacity finding, the Court sua sponte examined whether the ALJ should have further developed the record in this case. Under Ninth Circuit law, an ALJ has “an independent duty to fully and fairly develop the record and to assure that the claimant’s interests are considered.”  The ALJ must supplement the record if there is “ambiguous evidence” or the ALJ has found “the record is inadequate to allow for proper evaluation of the evidence.”  When reviewing this, the Court determined that the evidence was in conflict, rather than ambiguous and the ALJ’s duty to develop the record was not invoked. Even though this is a case in which the Court has some misgivings about the result and those misgivings may have caused the Court to decide the case differently, the ALJ is entitled to deference when the decision is supported by substantial evidence.  In other words, if the evidence can support either outcome, the Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ. 
4. Medical-Vocational Guideline 202.06
Petitioner contends that under Medical Vocational Guideline 202.06, he should be found disabled. Medical Vocational Guideline 202.06 directs a finding of disability where a claimant is limited to light work, is of advance age (55 and older), has a high school education and does not have transferrable skills. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2, Table 2, Rule 202.06.
In his decision, after finding that Petitioner was capable of performing past relevant work, thus directing a finding of not disabled, the ALJ went on to state that even if claimant was “restricted to less than a full range of light work . . . the vocational expert testified [he] could perform the jobs of cleaner I and electronics assembler, jobs which exist in significant numbers in the regional and national economy.”
Petitioner is correct that under Ninth Circuit law, a vocational expert’s testimony cannot “supplant or override a disability conclusion dictated by the Guidelines.” The Commissioner contends that any error made by the ALJ in this regard is “harmless error.”
The Ninth Circuit has affirmed “under the rubric of harmless error where the mistake was nonprejudicial to the claimant or irrelevant to the ALJ’s ultimate disability conclusion.”  For example, in Matthews v. Shalala, the ALJ failed to include one of claimant’s limitations in his hypothetical to the vocational expert.  However, because the claimant had failed, at step four, to show that he could not return to his past work, the burden remained on him and the ALJ was not required to rely on the vocational expert’s testimony to show that the claimant could perform other kinds of work. Id. The court concluded: “The vocational expert’s testimony was thus useful, but not required . . . Any error would have been harmless.” Id.
Similarly, in this case, the ALJ concluded that Petitioner had the residual functional capacity to perform the full range of medium work (AR 16) and thus could perform his past relevant work.  The ALJ then found, alternatively, that even if Petitioner was limited to light work, significant jobs that he could perform existed in the national economy.  This was an unnecessary step that the ALJ was not required to perform having found Petitioner capable of performing past relevant work and not disabled at step four. Accordingly, if an error was made by the ALJ in not following the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, it was harmless.
IV. CONCLUSION
The ALJ is the fact-finder and is solely responsible for weighing and drawing inferences from facts and determining credibility. If the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, one of which is the ALJ’s, a reviewing court may not substitute its interpretation for that of the ALJ.
The evidence upon which the ALJ relied can reasonably and rationally support his well-formed conclusions, despite the fact that such evidence may be susceptible to a different interpretation. Indeed, in this case, this Court might well have found differently if was to decide the case de novo. However, such a statement is drawn from a cold record, and it is not this Court’s role to alter the ALJ’s decision without some appropriate basis under the law for doing so, consistent with its role as a reviewing court only. Here, the ALJ’s decision as to Petitioner’s alleged disability is based on proper legal standards and supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the Court concludes that the Commissioner’s determination that Petitioner is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act is supported by substantial evidence in the record and is based upon an application of proper legal standards.
Accordingly, the Commissioner’s decision is affirmed.
V. ORDER
Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s Petitioner for Review (Dkt. 1) is DENIED, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and this action is DISMISSED in its entirety, with prejudice.

    <<Prev   1    2    3    4
Categories: Social Security Cases | Tags: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

If Your Treating Physician Says You Are Disabled, The Social Security Judge MUST Find You Disabled.

Posted on March 21, 2012 by Judge London Steverson

KOSOWSKI v. ASTRUE

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division.

March 19, 2012.

Stacey Ayn Kosowski, Plaintiff, represented by L. Jack Gibney, Jr., Law Office of L. Jack Gibney.
Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant, represented by John F. Rudy, III, US Attorney’s Office – FLM.

 

 

OPINION AND ORDER
JAMES R. KLINDT, Magistrate Judge.
I. Status
Stacey Ayn Kosowksi (“Plaintiff”) is appealing the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s final decision denying her claims for disability insurance benefits (“DIB“) and supplemental security income (“SSI“). Her alleged inability to work stems from back injuries, nerve damage, chronic pain, and depression.  Plaintiff filed an application for DIB. Plaintiff alleges a disability onset date of October 1, 2005.
Plaintiff’s claims were denied initially,  and were denied upon reconsideration, An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) held a hearing on November 21, 2008 regarding Plaintiff’s claims.  After the hearing, the ALJ issued a Decision dated March 30, 2009.  Plaintiff requested a review of the ALJ’s Decision,  and on November 17, 2010, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review,  making the ALJ’s written Decision the final decision of the Commissioner.
On January 7, 2011, Plaintiff commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and § 1383(c)(3), by timely filing the Complaint (Doc. No. 1) seeking review of the Commissioner’s final decision. The available administrative remedies have been exhausted, and the case is properly before the Court.
Plaintiff raises one issue on appeal: whether the ALJ properly considered and gave appropriate weight to the opinion of Plaintiff’s treating physician, Tai Q. Nguyen, M.D. 
After reviewing the record and the parties’ respective memoranda, the undersigned finds the final decision of the Commissioner is due to be reversed and remanded for the reasons explained herein.
II. The ALJ’s Decision

When determining whether an individual is disabled, an ALJ must follow the five-step sequential inquiry set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (“Regulations”), determining as appropriate whether the individual: 1) is currently employed; 2) has a severe impairment; 3) has an impairment that meets or medically equals one listed in the Regulations; 4) can perform past relevant work; and 5) retains the ability to perform any work in the national economy.
The claimant bears the burden of persuasion through step four and, at step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner. 
Here, the ALJ performed the required five-step sequential inquiry.  At step one, the ALJ observed Plaintiff “has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since October 1, 2005, the alleged disability onset date.”  (emphasis and citation omitted). At step two, the ALJ found that Plaintiff suffers from “the following severe impairments: a lumbar spine disorder status post three surgeries, chronic pain disorder, and depression.”  (emphasis and citation omitted). At step three, the ALJ stated Plaintiff “does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.” . The ALJ determined Plaintiff has the following residual functional capacity (“RFC”):
[Plaintiff can] perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a) except [Plaintiff] cannot engage in activities that involve climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. [Plaintiff] can occasionally climb ramps or stairs, and occasionally engage in balancing, kneeling, crouching, crawling, and stooping. [Plaintiff] must avoid exposure to dangerous work hazards. [Plaintiff] is limited to routine, repetitive work tasks.
 At step four, the ALJ ascertained Plaintiff “is unable to perform any past relevant work.”  At step five, after “[c]onsidering [Plaintiff’s] age, education, work experience, and [RFC,]” the ALJ found “there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that [Plaintiff] can perform.”   The ALJ concluded Plaintiff was not under a disability from October 1, 2005 through the date of the Decision.
This Court reviews the Commissioner’s final decision as to disability pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). Although no deference is given to the ALJ’s conclusions of law, findings of fact “are conclusive if . . . supported by `substantial evidence’ . . . .” 
“Substantial evidence is something `more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance.'”
 The substantial evidence standard is met when there is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” 
It is not for this Court to re-weigh the evidence; rather, the entire record is reviewed to determine whether “the decision reached is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.”
IV. Discussion

Plaintiff raises one issue before this Court. Plaintiff alleges the ALJ did not properly consider and give appropriate weight to the opinion of Plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Nguyen. Pl.’s Mem. at 4-7. Plaintiff contends the ALJ should have afforded Dr. Nguyen’s opinion great weight because “Dr. Nguyen is a neurosurgeon who has treated and examined [P]laintiff and has performed a prior surgery on [P]laintiff and is in the best position to evaluate [P]laintiff’s condition.” Id. at 5. Furthermore, Plaintiff asserts that “[t]here is no other treating physician who has actually examined Plaintiff and no doctor who has a longer relationship with her.” Id. at 6.
On October 25, 2006, Plaintiff sought treatment from Dr. Nguyen. Tr. at 288. Dr. Nguyen recorded Plaintiff’s chief complaints as follows: “bilateral upper gluteal pain, bilateral gluteal pain, and right lower extremity pain. . . . She also complain[ed] of numbness in the last 3 toes of her right foot.” Tr. at 288. Dr. Nguyen opined that Plaintiff had a possible recurrent disk herniation of L4-5 on her right side. Tr. at 288. Based on the severity of Plaintiff’s complaints, Dr. Nguyen “recommended an exploration and possible surgical decompression of the nerve root.” Tr. at 288. Plaintiff was scheduled for the operation. Tr. at 288.
On November 9, 2006, Dr. Nguyen performed a hemilaminotomy and diskectomy L4-5 on Plaintiff’s right side. Tr. at 297. After this procedure, Plaintiff’s “disks were satisfactorily excised,” “the nerve was found to be free from compression,” and “hemostasis was obtained.” Tr. at 297. Two days following this surgery, Plaintiff’s pain level was controlled, she was able to ambulate to the bathroom without difficulty, and she was discharged from the hospital.6 Tr. at 299-300.
On February 28, 2007, Dr. Nguyen saw Plaintiff for a follow-up appointment related to Plaintiff’s chronic back pain and urinary incontinence. Tr. at 290-91. Dr. Nguyen noted that Plaintiff still continued to complain of pain in her right leg.  Dr. Nguyen’s assessment of Plaintiff’s condition was that she “has a low back syndrome, and she is not considered to be a surgical candidate.”  Dr. Nguyen recommended Plaintiff seek treatment from a pain management clinic.
In October 2008, Dr. Nguyen noted that he had evaluated Plaintiff on March 12, 2008, and he made the following findings.  Dr. Nguyen opined Plaintiff could lift and/or carry less than ten pounds frequently, she could occasionally stand and/or walk for less than two hours in an eight-hour workday, and she could sit for less than six hours in an eight-hour workday.  Dr. Nguyen determined that Plaintiff had physical limitations that prevented her from pushing and/or pulling with her arms and legs.  Plaintiff could never climb, balance, kneel, crouch, or stoop. Tr. at 442. Lastly, Plaintiff was limited in reaching in all directions. Tr. at 443. Dr. Nguyen concluded that Plaintiff had been suffering from these limitations since July 1995. Tr. at 445.
The Regulations instruct ALJs how to weigh the medical opinions of treating physicians properly. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). Because treating physicians “are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairment(s),” a treating physician’s medical opinion is to be afforded controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). When a treating physician’s medical opinion is not due controlling weight, the ALJ must determine the appropriate weight it should be given by considering factors such as the length of treatment, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, as well as the supportability of the opinion, its consistency with the other evidence, and the specialization of the physician. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).
If an ALJ concludes the medical opinion of a treating physician should be given less than substantial or considerable weight, he or she must clearly articulate reasons showing “good cause” for discounting it.  Good cause exists when (1) the opinion is not bolstered by the evidence; (2) the evidence supports a contrary finding; or (3) the opinion is conclusory or inconsistent with the treating physician’s own medical records. The ALJ must “state with particularity the weight he [or she] gave the different medical opinions and the reasons therefor.” 
Here, the ALJ reviewed Plaintiff’s medical history as contained in the record. The ALJ assigned “little weight” to Dr. Nguyen’s opinion because “a less than sedentary [RFC] is too restrictive in light of the medical evidence.”  The ALJ did not articulate any other reasoning or explanation as to why “little weight” was afforded to Dr. Nguyen’s opinion.
On its face, the reason given by the ALJ for affording Dr. Nguyen’s opinion little weight may be considered a “good cause” reason; however, the ALJ did not explain her reasoning with any specificity or provide any evidentiary support for her reason.. The ALJ’s lack of explanation to support the decision to give little weight to Dr. Nguyen’s opinion impedes judicial review and therefore warrants reversal.
Defendant contends that the “ALJ properly considered an opinion from Plaintiff’s treating physician” and then Defendant goes on to review the medical evidence of record and provide reasons why the ALJ’s Decision was proper.  Although Defendant’s contentions are potentially convincing, if accepted as true, the Court “cannot uphold a decision by an administrative agency . . . if, while there is enough evidence in the record to support the decision, the reasons given by the trier of fact do not build an accurate and logical bridge between the evidence and the result, or the reasons are not included in the decision. Given these standards, this Court cannot substitute the contentions in Defendant’s Memorandum for the actual findings, or lack thereof, made by the ALJ.
V. Conclusion
After a thorough review of the record, the undersigned cannot find that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s final decision because the ALJ did not provide sufficient reasons for discrediting the opinion of Dr. Nguyen, Plaintiff’s treating physician. In accordance with the foregoing, it is
ORDERED:
1. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and § 1383(c)(3), REVERSING the Commissioner’s final decision and REMANDING this matter with the following instructions:
(a) Reevaluate Dr. Nguyen’s opinion and state with particularity the weight afforded to Dr. Nguyen’s opinion; if the opinion is discounted, adequate reasons showing good cause for discounting it shall be provided and shall be supported by substantial evidence.
(b) Take such other action as may be necessary to resolve these claims properly.
2. The Clerk is further directed to close the file.
3. If benefits are awarded on remand, Plaintiff’s counsel shall have thirty (30) days from receiving notice of the amount of past due benefits to seek the Court’s approval of attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). See Bergen v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., 454 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2006).
DONE AND ORDERED.
Categories: Social Security Cases | Tags: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Commissioner Of Social Security Admin Reversed On Appeal.

Posted on March 16, 2012 by Judge London Steverson

BAYS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

KENNETH BAYS, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

Case No. 6:10-cv-1577-Orl-DAB.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division.

http://www.amazon.com/Judge-London-Steverson/e/B006WQKFJM

March 14, 2012.

Kenneth Bays, Plaintiff, represented by Shea A. Fugate, Law Office of Shea Fugate.
Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant, represented by John F. Rudy, III, US Attorney’s Office – FLM.

Memorandum Opinion & Order
DAVID A. BAKER, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the Social Security Act (the Act), as amended, Title 42 United States Code Section 405(g), to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the Commissioner) denying his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits under the Act.
The record has been reviewed, including a transcript of the proceedings before the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the exhibits filed and the administrative record, and the pleadings and memoranda submitted by the parties in this case. Oral argument has not been requested.
For the reasons that follow, the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Procedural History
Plaintiff filed for a period of disability, DIB and SSI benefits on January 27, 2008. R. 113-17, 120-23. He alleged an onset of disability on November 8, 2006, due to pain in the lower back, right leg, knee, and hip. R. 54-56, 132, 162-166, 183. His application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. R. 58-61, 62-72. Plaintiff requested a hearing, which was held on September 9, 2009, before Administrative Law Judge Marc Mates (hereinafter referred to as “ALJ”). R. 24-52. In a decision dated October 16, 2009, the ALJ found Plaintiff not disabled as defined under the Act through the date of his decision. R. 11-23. Plaintiff timely filed a Request for Review of the ALJ’s decision. R. 9. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request on June 25, 2010. R. 5-8. Plaintiff filed this action for judicial review on October 25, 2010. Doc. No. 1.
B. Medical History and Findings Summary
Plaintiff was born on October 13, 1966 and was 40 years old on the alleged disability onset date and forty-three years old at the time of the hearing; had graduated from high school. R. 29, 168. Prior to November 8, 2006, the alleged onset date of disability. R. 113, 120. Plaintiff had worked as a laborer, as a brick layer, and as a roofer. R. 137-145, 163.
Plaintiff’s medical history is set forth in detail in the ALJ’s decision. Approximately twenty years prior to the onset date, Plaintiff was involved in a motorcycle accident and suffered (along with other injuries not relevant here) a fracture of the right femoral shaft, necessitating surgery and placement of a fixation rod in his right leg. R. 205-10, 217. For many years, Plaintiff did not have pain from this accident, however, around the beginning of 2008, he began to experience pain in the lower back, in the right leg from a cracked rod in the femur from the accident, in the knee, and hip; he also complained of high blood pressure and anxiety. R. 54-56, 132, 162, 164, 166, 183. After reviewing Plaintiff’s medical records and Plaintiff’s testimony, the ALJ found that Plaintiff suffered from complications of an internal orthopedic device (right femur) and spondylolisthesis of L5 upon SI, which were “severe” medically determinable impairments, but not impairments severe enough to meet or medically equal one of the impairments listed in Appendix 1, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4. R. 17. The ALJ determined that Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform sedentary work which does not involve climbing, although he can engage in all other postural activities, including stooping and crouching, on an occasional basis, with pushing and pulling of the lower extremities is also limited to occasional, and no more than moderate exposure to vibration and hazards. R. 17. In making this determination, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s statements regarding his limitations concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms were not credible to the extent they were inconsistent with the ALJ’s residual functional capacity assessment. R. 18. Based upon Plaintiff’s RFC, the ALJ determined that he could not perform past relevant work. R. 21. Considering Plaintiff’s vocational profile and RFC, the ALJ applied the Medical-Vocational Guidelines (the grids), 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2, and, based on the testimony of the vocational expert (“VE”), the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff could perform work existing in significant numbers in the national economy as routing clerk, surveillance system monitor, and grader/sorter. R. 22. Accordingly, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was not under a disability, as defined in the Act, at any time through the date of the decision. R. 22.
Plaintiff now asserts five points of error. First, he argues that the ALJ erred by by finding he had the RFC to perform sedentary work contrary to statements by his treating physician. Second, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in failing to determine that the claimant suffered from the severe impairment of Spina Bifida Occulta. Third, he contends the ALJ erred by improperly applying the pain standard. Fourth, Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ erred in failing to consider the side effects of his medications. Fifth, he argues that the ALJ erred in evaluating his credibility. All issues are addressed, although not in the order presented by Plaintiff. For the reasons that follow, the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The scope of this Court’s review is limited to determining whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards, McRoberts v. Bowen, 841 F.2d 1077, 1080 (11th Cir. 1988), and whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence, Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390 (1971). The Commissioner’s findings of fact are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla — i.e., the evidence must do more than merely create a suspicion of the existence of a fact, and must include such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support the conclusion. Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1560 (11th Cir. 1995) (citing Walden v. Schweiker, 672 F.2d 835, 838 (11th Cir. 1982) and Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)).
“If the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, this Court must affirm, even if the proof preponderates against it.” Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240 n. 8 (11th Cir. 2004). “We may not decide facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute our judgment for that of the [Commissioner.]” Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005). The district court must view the evidence as a whole, taking into account evidence favorable as well as unfavorable to the decision. Foote, 67 F.3d at 1560; accord, Lowery v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1992) (court must scrutinize the entire record to determine reasonableness of factual findings).
The ALJ must follow five steps in evaluating a claim of disability. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. First, if a claimant is working at a substantial gainful activity, he is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). Second, if a claimant does not have any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limit his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, then he does not have a severe impairment and is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). Third, if a claimant’s impairments meet or equal an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, he is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). Fourth, if a claimant’s impairments do not prevent his from doing past relevant work, he is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). Fifth, if a claimant’s impairments (considering his residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work) prevent his from doing other work that exists in the national economy, then he is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).
III. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
A. A severe impairment
Plaintiff argues that the medical evidence showed he suffered from a severe impairment resulting from spina bifida occulta because this condition resulted in significant limitations, and the impairment was well-documented. The Commissioner argues that the ALJ did not err because he found a severe impairment in Plaintiff’s lower back (R. 17), even if it was for lumbar spondylolistheses and not spina bifida occulta, and he continued in the analysis to consider Plaintiff’s impairments in the next step in the evaluation process.
At Step 2 of the five-step evaluation process, the ALJ is called upon to determine whether a claimant’s impairments are severe. By definition, this inquiry is a “threshold” inquiry. It allows only claims based on the most trivial impairments to be rejected. In this Circuit, an impairment is not severe only if the abnormality is so slight and its effect so minimal that it would clearly not be expected to interfere with the individual’s ability to work, irrespective of age, education, or work experience. A claimant need show only that his impairment is not so slight and its effect not so minimal. McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026, 1031 (11th Cir. 1986).
There are ample complaints of back pain from Plaintiff in the record. An x-ray of Plaintiff’s lumbar spine on January 25, 2008 revealed an incomplete fusion of the ossification centers of the left transverse process at L1 and an incomplete fusion of the posterior elements of L5; and there was grade 1/2 spondylolistheses of L5/S1 and narrowing of the disc space. R. 231. An x-ray of the pelvis also indicated an incomplete fusion of the posterior elements of L5 and a fracture intramedullary rod within the femur; however there were no abnormalities in the pelvis or hip. R. 232-33. During an exam on February 27, 2008, orthopedic surgeon Jack R. Steel, M.D., diagnosed Plaintiff with spina bifida occulta and complication of an internal orthopedic device in his right femur. R. 235.
“If the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, this Court must affirm, even if the proof preponderates against it.” Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240 n. 8 (11th Cir. 2004). “We may not decide facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute our judgment for that of the [Commissioner.]” Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005). The district court must view the evidence as a whole, taking into account evidence favorable as well as unfavorable to the decision. Foote, 67 F.3d at 1560; accord, Lowery v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1992) (court must scrutinize the entire record to determine reasonableness of factual findings).
The ALJ must follow five steps in evaluating a claim of disability. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. First, if a claimant is working at a substantial gainful activity, he is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). Second, if a claimant does not have any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limit his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, then he does not have a severe impairment and is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). Third, if a claimant’s impairments meet or equal an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, he is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). Fourth, if a claimant’s impairments do not prevent his from doing past relevant work, he is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). Fifth, if a claimant’s impairments (considering his residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work) prevent his from doing other work that exists in the national economy, then he is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).
III. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
A. A severe impairment
Plaintiff argues that the medical evidence showed he suffered from a severe impairment resulting from spina bifida occulta because this condition resulted in significant limitations, and the impairment was well-documented. The Commissioner argues that the ALJ did not err because he found a severe impairment in Plaintiff’s lower back (R. 17), even if it was for lumbar spondylolistheses and not spina bifida occulta, and he continued in the analysis to consider Plaintiff’s impairments in the next step in the evaluation process.
At Step 2 of the five-step evaluation process, the ALJ is called upon to determine whether a claimant’s impairments are severe. By definition, this inquiry is a “threshold” inquiry. It allows only claims based on the most trivial impairments to be rejected. In this Circuit, an impairment is not severe only if the abnormality is so slight and its effect so minimal that it would clearly not be expected to interfere with the individual’s ability to work, irrespective of age, education, or work experience. A claimant need show only that his impairment is not so slight and its effect not so minimal. McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026, 1031 (11th Cir. 1986).
There are ample complaints of back pain from Plaintiff in the record. An x-ray of Plaintiff’s lumbar spine on January 25, 2008 revealed an incomplete fusion of the ossification centers of the left transverse process at L1 and an incomplete fusion of the posterior elements of L5; and there was grade 1/2 spondylolistheses of L5/S1 and narrowing of the disc space. R. 231. An x-ray of the pelvis also indicated an incomplete fusion of the posterior elements of L5 and a fracture intramedullary rod within the femur; however there were no abnormalities in the pelvis or hip. R. 232-33. During an exam on February 27, 2008, orthopedic surgeon Jack R. Steel, M.D., diagnosed Plaintiff with spina bifida occulta and complication of an internal orthopedic device in his right femur. R. 235.
The finding of any severe impairment, based on either a single impairment or a combination of impairments, is enough to satisfy step two because once an ALJ proceeds beyond step two, he is required to consider the claimant’s entire medical condition, including impairments an ALJ determined were not severe. Jamison v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 585, 588 (11th Cir. 1987); see also Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1238. The ALJ must make specific and well-articulated findings as to the effect of the combination of all of the claimant’s impairments. Bowen v. Heckler, 748 F.2d 629, 635 (11th Cir. 1984). However, a clear statement that an ALJ considered the combination of impairments constitutes an adequate expression of such findings. See Jones v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 941 F.2d 1529, 1533 (11th Cir. 1991).
In this case, although the ALJ did not find Plaintiff had a severe impairment of spina bifida occulta — or even mention it separately — the ALJ did find that Plaintiff’s spondylolistheses of L5/S1 of the lumbar spine was severe and caused Plaintiff some limitations (i.e., to sedentary work with postural limitations) from pain in Plaintiff’s lower back. Moreover, although Dr. Steel diagnosed Plaintiff with spina bifida occulta, he did not prescribe any specific restrictions or limitations based on that diagnosis, and instead focused on the broken rod in Plaintiff’s femur that was causing hip pain. Doc. 235. Even assuming the ALJ erred when he concluded Plaintiff’s spina bifida occulta was not severe a impairment, that error was harmless because the ALJ progressed to the next step in the five-step evaluation process and considered all of Plaintiff’s impairments in combination — including his lower back restrictions—at later steps in the evaluation process. See R. 17-20.
B. RFC and the treating physicians’ opinions.
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ in determining that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work when Plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Velleff, indicated Plaintiff had a more restrictive residual functional capacity, and no other examining physician indicated that the claimant had the residual functional capacity as determined by the ALJ. The Commissioner argues that the ALJ is not confined to simply adopting a treating physician’s opinions and the ALJ properly gave little weight to the limitations opined by Dr. Velleff.
Residual functional capacity is an assessment based on all relevant evidence of a claimant’s remaining ability to do work despite his impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a); Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997). The focus of this assessment is on the doctor’s evaluation of the claimant’s condition and the medical consequences thereof. Id.
While it is true, as the Commissioner argues, that the ALJ determines Plaintiff’s RFC, he must give substantial weight to the opinion, diagnosis and medical evidence of a treating physician unless there is good cause to do otherwise. See Lewis, 125 F.3d at 1440; Edwards, 937 F.2d at 583; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d). If a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record, the ALJ must give it controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). Where a treating physician has merely made conclusory statements, the ALJ may afford them such weight as is supported by clinical or laboratory findings and other consistent evidence of a claimant’s impairments. See Wheeler v. Heckler, 784 F.2d 1073, 1075 (11th Cir. 1986); see also Schnorr v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 578, 582 (11th Cir. 1987).
From late January to March 2008, Plaintiff was treated at KDMC Family Care Center for complaints of right knee, hip and back pain. R. 237-38. On February 27, 2008, Dr. Steel reviewed the x-rays and told Plaintiff that “removal of the prominent proximal rod will alleviate the symptoms of discomfort at the lateral hip. Removal of the distal portion of the rod would be difficult since the nail is broken. He is primarily interested in the prominent proximal rod and would feel more secure if the remainder of the rod were left in place. The surgery would be done as an outpatient. He would probably need to use his cane post-op in the left hand for awhile post op.” R. 235-36. Dr. Steel discussed the risks and benefits of removing the broken rod from the right femur and Plaintiff was unsure if he wanted to have the rod removed. R. 235.
On March 5, 2008, James Aphrem, D.O., reviewed Dr. Steel’s report, prescribed pain medication, and referred Plaintiff to pain management. R. 238. A week later, Plaintiff presented to Thomas K. Velleff, M.D., for complaints of lower back pain, right leg pain, and status-post rod problems in the right leg. R. 285. Dr. Velleff noted the broken rod needed to be removed; he also prescribed medications, and recommended that Plaintiff follow up with an orthopedic physician for removal of the rod. R. 286. From April to September 2008, Plaintiff saw Dr. Velleff five more times. R. 287-92. At that time, Dr. Velleff prescribed medications, but did not limit Plaintiff in any activities. R. 285-91. Eleven months later, on August 19, 2009, Dr. Velleff, filled out a form entitled “Medical Opinion Re: Ability To Do Work-Related Activities (Physical)1” and opined that Plaintiff could lift ten pounds occasionally; lift less than ten pounds frequently; stand and walk less than two hours in an 8-hour day; sit about two hours in an eight hour day; could sit for twenty to thirty minutes before changing positions; stand for twenty to thirty minutes before changing positions; and could never twist, stoop, crouch, climb stairs or climb ladders. R. 294-96. Such limitations would limit Plaintiff to less than sedentary work. See R. 22 (VE testified that a hypothetical person with such limitations would not be able to perform any other work).
The ALJ discounted Dr. Velleff’s opinion:
In determining the claimant’s residual functional capacity, little weight has been afforded to the recent treating source opinion from Thomas Velleff, M.D., as it is found to be overly restrictive, inadequately supported, and inconsistent with the weight of the evidence of record as a whole. In the August 2009 assessment, Dr. Velleff indicates that claimant is capable of lifting/carrying ten pounds, but can stand/walk less than two hours and sit about two hours in an eight hour work day. He further provides, among other limitations, that claimant can sit, stand, or walk no more than twenty-to-thirty minutes at a time before changing position; needs an opportunity to shift position at will from sitting or standing/walking; and needs to lie down at unpredictable intervals during a normal work shift. The degree of limitation ascribed by Dr. Velleff appears overly restrictive, and seems to reference only claimant’s complaints of back and hip pain in support. The undersigned accordingly ascribes little weight to Dr. Velleff’s August 2009 assessment.
By contrast, the degree of work-related restriction assessed by the State agency medical consultants appears reasonable and consistent with the weight of the evidence of record as a whole, thus warranting greater weight (Exhibits 10F and 12F). These consultants allowed claimant to lift more weight, but limited standing and/or walking to two hours total in an eight hour work day, essentially limiting claimant to sedentary work. They also ascribed environmental limitations, as reflected in the above residual functional capacity finding.
Claimant’s treatment history is well-documented and supportive of work-related restriction, but the evidence shows that he has received limited treatment overall and improvement is expected with surgical intervention, if elected. . . . Aside from the broken intramedullary rod, studies have shown the fracture to be well-healed (see, e.g., Exhibits 3F, 4F, SF, and 6F). With respect to claimant’s pelvis, studies have shown no evidence of acute or significant abnormality. Claimant was formally referred for pain management in March 2008 (see Exhibit 7F), but there is no documentation that he has pursued more aggressive treatment. There is also no evidence of leg length discrepancy (see Exhibit 6F).
The February 2008 remarks of Dr. Steel have been considered. Dr. Steel indicated that removal of the prominent proximal rod would alleviate claimant’s symptoms of discomfort at the lateral hip; removal of the distal portion of the rod would be difficult because of the broken nail (Exhibit 6F). Dr. Steel did not otherwise render an opinion as to claimant’s work-related capabilities. State agency medical consultant Dr. David Swan indicated, however, that “[r]emoval of the distal broken fragment which apparently was the cause of the pain could be carried out as an outpatient in a relatively minor procedure” (Exhibit 10F, p. 3). With regard to claimant’s back complaints, while a lumbar spine series indicated some spondylolysis and narrowing of the LS/S1 disk space, it otherwise showed all other disk spaces to be well-maintained and there was no evidence of fracture or destructive process (Exhibit SF). Examination of the back showed no tenderness, no muscle spasm, no pain, and normal posture and gait (Exhibit 2F). There are no references of record to significant motor dysfunction, sensory loss, or reflex abnormality, and no indication that claimant has pursued more aggressive treatment for his back complaints to date, which might support a further reduction in claimant’s residual functional capacity.
Prior to treatment in early 2008, claimant seemingly managed his pain with over-the-counter pain medication. Although he alleges current side effects of medication to include drowsiness, a restriction against exposure to work hazards (such as dangerous moving machinery and heights) would seemingly provide enough precaution to address those allegations. As previously discussed, there is no basis within the record to establish additional limitations, and the undersigned is persuaded that the foregoing limitations contain all inferences regarding the claimant’s impairments and the degree of severity thereof which are raised by the objective and credible evidence of record, and that a further degree of work-related restriction is unwarranted.
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in discounting Dr. Vellef’s opinion because there was objective medical evidence of Plaintiff’s impairment2. Doc. 16. Plaintiff argues that Dr. Velleff’s opinion is supported by the evidence of record, in that objective testing confirmed that Plaintiff had problems with his hip and the broken rod in his leg. R. 235. As explained in the prior section, Dr. Steel reviewed a CT scan of the right femur and noted that it showed a healed midshaft fracture with a Kuntschner nail in place with the nail protruding from the greater trochanter by about 2-3 inches; “removal of the prominent proximal rod will alleviate the symptoms of discomfort at the lateral hip,” but “[r]emoval of the distal portion of the rod would be difficult since the nail is broken.” R. 235. The lumbar spine x-ray also indicated an incomplete fusion of the ossification centers of the left transverse process at L1; an incomplete fusion of the posterior elements of L5; Grade ½ spondyloslysis of L5 upon S1; and narrowed disc space at L5-S1. R. 228. Plaintiff argues that Dr. Velleff’s opinion should have been accorded more weight than that of the non-examining physicians or the ALJ, who cannot come to his own conclusions regarding the limitations of Plaintiff by substituting his judgment for that of the medical and vocational experts.
The Commissioner argues that the ALJ properly discounted Dr. Velleff’s opinion because, significantly, he had not treated or evaluated Plaintiff for almost one year at the time that he completed the “checkbox/fill-in-the-blank” form indicating severe functional restrictions. R. 294-96. The Commissioner cites the ALJ’s determination that Dr. Velleff “offered very little support or explanation for the severe limitations opined in this form and because they were “inconsistent with the record as a whole.” R. 19. The Commissioner also argues that, as noted by the ALJ (R. 19), the severe limitations opined by Dr. Velleff were inconsistent with the weight of the record evidence as a whole. The Commissioner also argues that the ALJ properly gave little weight to the limitations opined by Dr. Velleff based on benign physical exam findings, including normal gait, normal muscle bulk/contour/tone, the absence of any lumbar pain/spasm/tenderness, and a negative straight leg raise test (R. 220-28), and argues that there is no disc herniation, even though Dr. Velleff indicated that there was on the form he completed. R. 295.
The ALJ’s rejection of Dr. Velleff’s opinion, and implicit discounting of Dr. Steel’s remarks that the “removal of the distal portion of the rod would be difficult because of the broken nail,” i.e., that it was possible that it would never be removed, was not based on substantial evidence. The ALJ concluded that “[a]side from the broken intramedullary rod, studies have shown the fracture to be well-healed,” and there was no problem with Plaintiff’s pelvis. R. 20. However, that does not negate the fact that there was objective medical evidence of a condition that Dr. Steel and Dr. Velleff opined was causing Plaintiff significant pain to warrant the suggested surgery. Plaintiff testified that Dr. Steel told him that surgery possibly would help. R. 38. He told
Plaintiff he could do surgery on the femur and take the top of it out, but “more than likely it would shatter the bone” so he would have to go in and replace the whole femur.” R. 38. Dr. Steel told Plaintiff that surgery on the top part “might help with a little bit of” the hip pain but “no guarantee,” and would not affect the back pain. R. 39. Dr. Steel said that the surgery to replace the whole femur would cost $50,000; the more simple operation just to replace the top broken piece (with no guarantee of success) would cost $5,000. R. 39-40. Plaintiff could not afford even the less expensive surgery. Dawkins v. Bowen, 848 F.2d 1211, 1213 (11th Cir. 1988) (“While a controllable medical condition is generally not disabling, if the claimant cannot afford the treatment and can find no way to obtain it, poverty may excuse the non-compliance.”). The ALJ failed to even comment on Plaintiff’s inability to afford the surgery that was the central underpinning to the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff failed to “pursue more aggressive treatment.” R. 20. The ALJ also discounts the severity of the broken rod in Plaintiff’s femur because “there is also no evidence of leg length discrepancy” (citing Ex. 6F – R. 235-36) even though no physician cited that as evidence Plaintiff was not impaired or limited. The ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. To the extent there is some question about Dr. Velleff’s opinion because he has “discipline on file” with the State of Florida (R.297), the ALJ may order a consultative examination with a different physician, such as an orthopedic surgeon without a problematic record, on remand.
To the extent Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in stating Plaintiff’s restrictions concerning exposure to vibration and hazards, the Commissioner does not dispute that the ALJ’s RFC determination did not match “verbatim” those opined by the state agency physicians (R. 268, 279), but argues any discrepancy was harmless error because the operative hypothetical to the VE accurately described the limitation as “avoiding moderate exposure to vibration and hazards.” The Court need not reach this issue, but on remand the ALJ will consider the appropriate restriction for exposure to vibration and hazards.
C. Pain and credibility.
Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ erred in evaluating his leg and hip pain and by finding his subjective complaints credible only to the extent they are not inconsistent with the RFC as determined by the ALJ. R. 18. The Commissioner again argues that benign examination findings in Plaintiff’s lower back and the availability of surgery to fix the pain in Plaintiff’s leg/hip negate his statements regarding limitations.
Pain is a non-exertional impairment. Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1559 (11th Cir. 1995). The ALJ must consider all of a claimant’s statements about his symptoms, including pain, and determine the extent to which the symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1528. In determining whether the medical signs and laboratory findings show medical impairments which reasonably could be expected to produce the pain alleged, the ALJ must apply the Eleventh Circuit’s three-part “pain standard”:
The pain standard requires (1) evidence of an underlying medical condition and either (2) objective medical evidence that confirms the severity of the alleged pain arising from that condition or (3) that the objectively determined medical condition is of such a severity that it can be reasonably expected to give rise to the alleged pain.
Foote, 67 F.3d at 1560, quoting Holt v. Sullivan, 921 F.2d 1221, 1223 (11th Cir. 1991). Pain alone can be disabling, even when its existence is unsupported by objective evidence, Marbury v. Sullivan, 957 F.2d 837, 839 (11th Cir. 1992), although an individual’s statement as to pain is not, by itself, conclusive of disability. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A).
The ALJ did not refer to the Eleventh Circuit’s pain standard since Plaintiff’s case was handled in the West Virginia area (where he first filed it); however, the ALJ did cited the applicable regulations and Social Security Rulings. R. 17. The ALJ discussed in pertinent part Plaintiff’s hip and femur issues without really discounting their severity, except to the extent Dr. Steel had recommended surgery and Plaintiff did not pursue the surgery:
The evidence clearly supports that claimant has limitations stemming from his musculoskeletal and orthopedic difficulties; however, the evidence of record fails to support the degree of severity and/or functional limitation described by claimant-i.e., disabling impairment. The evidence of record supports that claimant has severe impairments limiting him to a reduced range of sedentary work, most notably, as a result of standing/walking limitations of no more than two hours out of an eight-hour work day.
As discussed above, claimant sustained injuries in a 1987 motorcycle accident. Most notably, he sustained a compound midshaft fracture of the right femur with involvement of the right knee (Exhibit IF). At the time, he required emergent internal fixation and repair of the extensor laceration of the right knee and closed reduction and pinning of the distal radial fracture. The evidence indicates that he recovered satisfactorily. But, in February 2008, Jack Steel, M.D., of the Scott Orthopedic Center, noted claimant’s increased right hip problems related to a complication of the internal orthopedic device (Exhibit 6F). Dr. Steel noted that diagnostic studies showed a healed right midshaft fracture but a nail broken within the bone just proximal to the lesser trochanter. Dr. Steel recommended surgery, and told claimant that removal of the prominent proximal rod could alleviate his lateral hip discomfort. (Removal of the distal portion of the rod, however, would be difficult because of the broken nail.) On physical examination, Dr. Steel observed palpable tenderness of the right hip from the superior aspect of the greater trochanter extending into the buttock, and pain on internal and external rotation.
In addition, the record includes diagnostic studies suggesting grade 1 to 2 spondylolisthesis of L5 upon S1 and a narrowed LS/S1 disk space (Exhibit SF). A January 2008 progress note reflects claimant’s report of back pain, but no leg pain or muscle weakness (Exhibit 2F). On physical examination, he had no tenderness to palpation of the lumbosacral spine, no pain, no muscle spasm, negative straight leg raising tests, and normal posture and gait. Accordingly, Maria Sy, M.D., recommended NSAIDs, heat, and physical therapy as needed. In light of these findings, partial credibility is afforded to claimant’s subjective reports of pain and limitation to the extent consistent with the residual functional capacity described above. However, for reasons set forth below, the evidence supports a finding that despite some impairment and residual limitation, claimant retains the ability to engage in a reduced range of work activity.
R. 18-19 (emphasis added).
Where an ALJ decides not to credit a claimant’s testimony about pain, the ALJ must articulate specific and adequate reasons for doing so, or the record must be obvious as to the credibility finding. Jones v. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 941 F.2d 1529, 1532 (11th Cir. 1991) (articulated reasons must be based on substantial evidence). A reviewing court will not disturb a clearly articulated credibility finding with substantial supporting evidence in the record. Foote, 67 F.3d at 1561-62; Cannon v. Bowen, 858 F.2d 1541, 1545 (11th Cir. 1988).
As explained above, the ALJ’s findings regarding limitations from Plaintiff’s femur/hip impairment was not based on substantial evidence. Similarly, the ALJ’s discounting of Plaintiff’s credibility as to his hip pain due to the broken rod in his femur, and his inability to afford the surgery to repair it, was not based on substantial evidence. On remand, the ALJ will properly apply the Eleventh Circuit pain standard in deciding Plaintiff’s credibility regarding the non-exertional impairment of pain.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court REVERSES and REMANDS the Commissioner’s decision pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment consistent with this opinion and, thereafter, to close the file.
DONE and ORDERED.
Categories: Social Security Cases | Tags: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Force Factor In Sexual Assault Cases.

Posted on March 8, 2012 by Judge London Steverson

Force Was the Deciding Factor In The Rape Case.

The use of force appears to have been the deciding factor for the Convening Authority in the Air Force Academy sexual assault Article 32 Investigation. Anyone who used force in the sexual assault was referred for trial by court-martial; whereas, anyone who was patient and waited for the alcohol to take its toll was allowed to go scott free.
That is so ironic, because the only one who achieved vaginal penetration with his organ was allowed to go free. He dodged a bullet. However, on the other hand, the cadet who used his fists in the act of sexual assault never got further than heavy petting and massaging of the genitalia.

The Cadet Kyle Cressy incidents date to May 2011. The charges state that he penetrated a female cadet’s vagina with his hand or finger, as well as his penis, while she was “substantially incapacitated.” Cressy’s charges have been dropped by the Air Force Convening Authority on the recommendation of the Article 32 Investigating Officer. Cressy’s accuser said she passed out on his bed, then awoke to find a man touching and then having sex with her. She testified that she kissed him before blacking out and never said “no” — and while she recalled trying to push his hands away, the mitigating evidence, combined with a two-day delay before she reported having been assaulted, appear to have been factors in the Convening Authority’s, Brigadier General Richard Clark’s, decision to drop the charges against him.

Air Force officials say testimony about alcohol consumption was among the reasons they decided not to prosecute Cressy on sexual assault charges. In a statement released 5 March the Academy spokesperson said Article 32 Investigating Officer assigned to Cressy’s case found no reasonable grounds to prosecute. He cited testimony that the alleged victim wrote and sent a text message that she couldn’t recall, and expert testimony that it’s possible for someone to consent to sex and suffer an alcohol blackout preventing recall of the event.

Cadet Stephan Claxton, AFA Class 2013, was charged with illicit acts in March and November of last year. In the first, he’s said to have placed a cadet’s hand on his penis while engaging in underage drinking. In the second, he is accused of striking a fellow cadet on the face with his fist and unbuttoning and unzipping her pants without her consent, as well as forcibly kissing and choking her. Claxton was recommended for court martial buy the Article 32 Investigating Officer.

The court-martial was recommended by Maj. Gen. Richard Clark, Commandant of Cadets and the academy’s special court-martial convening authority. The decision is pending with Lt. Gen. Mike Gould, Superintendent and the Academy’s General Court-martial Convening Authority. Vice Superintendent Col. Tamara Rank said, “We expect the best from our cadets and do not tolerate unacceptable behaviors.”
The Cressy and Claxton hearings concluded with very different results.

The Article 32 hearing for Cadet First Class Robert M. Evenson, Class of 2011, is still under way. Evenson had three charges preferred against him in January for allegations of engaging in an unprofessional relationship, rape, aggravated sexual assault contact and indecent acts and conduct unbecoming to an officer.

Three additional charges were preferred against him last month and are under investigation. They include wrongful sexual contact and indecent acts, stalking and assault.
It appears that force and the use of force will be the new battle ground in the battle between women and the military when it comes to disposing of rape and sexual assault allegations.
In a major law suit filed by 8 present and former US Marine Corps female officers, the use of physical force is being challenged as an unnecessary element in the proof of the offense. The women argue that proof of force should not be necessary in the modern world. They argue that modern rapists are more methodical and patient; they wait for the drugs or alcohol to lower the females capacity to give or withhold consent. Once the ability to give informed consent is so impaired then the women can be raped and the rapist is left with plausible deniability if the case is prosecuted.
The women and their attorney seek to change the UCMJ and the military male-dominated culture on the issue of force in the conduct of rape and sexual assault. They want to rewrite Article 120 of the UCMJ to remove proof of the use of force as an element of the crime.
In the Webster Smith Case force was not an issue. All of the sexual encounters were found to be consensual. The Coast Guard prosecutor was reduced to trying to prove that psychological coercion was used to persuade a female to take nude pictures and perform a sexual act. Amazingly this woman’s reputation in the community since high school was that of a person with easy virtue who delivered the good faster than Federal Express. The very nature of her secret that was at the heart of the alleged coercion was about a sexual tryst with an enlisted man from another branch of the service. And to top it all off, the woman was testifying under a grant of immunity. Truly amazing, it is hard to make this stuff up.
A press conference was held at the National Press Conference Tuesday March 6, 2012 to announce a new lawsuit being filed in the US District Court in Washington, DC on behalf of eight current and former members of the Navy and Marine Corps. The lawsuit, filed by Susan L. Burke of Burke PLLC, charges that the “laws designed to reduce rape, sexual assault and harassment in the Navy and Marine Corps directly and seriously harmed Plaintiffs and others who have reported rape and sexual assault and have challenged sexual harassment. Rather than being respected and appreciated for reporting crimes and unprofessional conduct, Plaintiffs and others who report are branded ‘troublemakers,’ endure egregious and blatant retaliation, and are often forced out of military service.”

The lead plaintiffs, Adriana Klay and Elle Helmer, stationed at the central command headquarters of the Marines in Washington, DC, are both former Marine officers. Klay was a merit scholar and is an honors graduate of the US Naval Academy. She was sexually harassed and gang raped by a senior Marine Corps officer and his civilian friend in order to “humiliate her.” Elle Helmer, the Public Affairs Officer and Official Spokesperson for the Marines, was ordered to participate in a “pub crawl” by her immediate superior officer and then raped by him.

Speakers at the press conference included Susan Burke, Eleanor Smeal, Anu Bhagwati, Executive Director and Co-Founder of Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN), Linda Hallman, Executive Director of American Association of University Women (AAUW), Nancy Parrish, President of Protect our Defenders, and Colonel Ann Wright, who is retired from the military.
“Although defendants testified before Congress and elsewhere that they have ‘zero tolerance’ for rape and sexual assault, their conduct and the facts demonstrate the opposite: They have a high tolerance for sexual predators in their ranks, and ‘zero tolerance’ for those who report rape, sexual assault and harassment,” according to the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington.

The suit outlines a pattern of abuse and portrays, in grim detail, the alleged experiences of the eight female service members — two former Marine Corps officers, one active duty enlisted Marine, one former enlisted member of the Marine Corps and four former enlisted members of the Navy.

“At first it was easy to laugh it off,” plaintiff Elle Helmer, one of the former officers, said about her superiors’ advances.
“When you finally said, you know, I’m really not interested, I’d rather we be friends — that’s when you became the target. They hated you for standing up for yourself,” she told HLN’s Jane Velez-Mitchell on Tuesday night.

The lawsuit alleges Helmer was raped by her superior at his office in March 2006 after a required pub crawl.

She told reporters at the National Press Club in Washington earlier in the day that she hoped by going public other victims would be encouraged to speak out.

“We all just wanted to serve our country and be good Marines and service members,” former Marine Lt. Elle Helmer said. “Ultimately we were failed.”

Helmer is one of eight current and former female service members who filed a lawsuit alleging rape, sexual assault and harassment while serving in the military.

Click here to read the entire lawsuit

“It’s very hard to come forward and admit what they would call weakness, but what I would call strength in the sense that people are coming forward and asking for help,” Helmer said.

She claims her assault occurred while stationed at the Marine Corps Barracks in Washington, DC, as a public affairs officer.

She says after being ordered to attend a Marine Corps-endorsed pub crawl and drink excessively, her boss, a major, ordered her back to his office and raped her.

“Ultimately I fell and hit my head on the corner of his desk and was knocked out,” she said. “During the time I was knocked out was when the rape occurred.”

Helmer says she was ultimately forced out of the Marine Corps, which she says is far too common with other victims.

“The Department of Defense is ultimately losing good personnel, and victims are becoming collateral damage,” Helmer said.

The lawsuit claims many of the men questioned were barely punished, if at all. It’s an issue Helmer says goes beyond the service women who report the assaults.

“My rapist was served collateral duties at the White House,” she said. “With that said, these people guard the president.”

Helmer says she hopes the lawsuit is a catalyst for change and the military realizes how big this problem really is.

“Take care of your people, and if you’re losing your people, it’s ultimately weakening a nation. It’s a homeland security issue,” she said.

“It’s the first time I’ve had a voice in six years, so pardon if it’s a little wobbly,” said Helmer.

She was joined by Ariana Klay, another former Marine Corps officer and plaintiff, who served in Iraq in 2008 and 2009.

In August 2010, Klay was “gang-raped” by a senior officer and his civilian friend at her Washington home, the suit contends. The officer allegedly threatened to kill Klay.

She reported the rapes and the officer was eventually convicted in a military court of adultery and indecent language, and given 45 days in military confinement, Klay said.

“Their stance was there were two that said it (sex) was consensual, despite the death threat. That’s two against one. So by that logic, the more people you’re gang-raped by the less your case is,” she told Velez-Mitchell.

The Marine Corps responded to Klay and Helmer’s allegations in a written statement Tuesday that said their respective cases had been properly investigated and handled.

“Federal law and judicial rulings require commanders in all services, including the Marine Corps, to balance needs of alleged victims with the constitutional rights of service members accused of crimes,” it read.
Smeal asserted, “The women’s movement is determined to end this wonton violence against women in the armed services. The definition of rape in the military must change to comply with the new FBI definition, which has recognized that force need not be present, but rather in modern rape alcohol and drugs are used to subdue the victim. The cover-up for a few predator abusers in the military is injuring women, men, and the armed services themselves.”

The Pentagon’s “Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military” indicated that approximately 3,000 women experienced sexual assault in fiscal year 2008, which is a 9 percent increase from the previous year. Experts say that the real rate of sexual assault in the military is five times report incidence. Because of the high level of retaliation, victims are afraid to report. For women in the military in Iraq and Afghanistan, the rate of sexual assaults by US military personnel increased by 25 percent.

According to a 2003 study by the Veterans Affairs Medical Center, at least one-third of all women veterans have experienced rape or sexual assault during their service primarily from US service personnel, and thirty percent of military women experience domestic violence. Moreover, rape occurs in the military nearly twice as often as in the civilian world.
According to the most recent Defense Department study, more than 19,000 incidents of unwanted sexual contact are estimated to have occurred in 2010, though less than 3,000 of those events were reported.

In 2010, less than 21% of reported cases went to trial. Of the 529 alleged perpetrators who were prosecuted, 53% were convicted, according to the 2011 Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, which is part of the Defense Department.

“As leaders of this department we are committed to doing everything we can to ensure the safety, dignity and well being of our people. One sexual assault is one too many,” Defense Department spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said in response to the lawsuit.

As a result of the pending litigation, she was unable to comment directly on the allegations.

“Because sexual assault cases are some of the toughest cases to investigate and prosecute, the department has increased funding for investigators and judge advocates to receive specialized training,” said Smith.

The lawsuit was filed less than two months after Defense Secretary Leon Panetta outlined new measures targeting sexual assaults against U.S military personnel.

In January, he promised increased funding to train military investigators and judge advocates about sexual assault cases, stressing the military has a “zero tolerance policy” for such crimes.

“Our men and women in uniform put their lives on the line every day to try to keep America safe,” Panetta said then. “We have a moral duty to keep them safe from those who would attack their dignity and their honor.”
http://www.amazon.com/Judge-London-Steverson/e/B006WQKFJM

Categories: Military Justice | Tags: , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Blog at WordPress.com.