Opinion
Case No. CIV-19-0118-SLP
10-07-2019
TONY HASKINS, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Tony Haskins, seeks judicial review of the Social Security Administration's denial of his application for disability insurance benefits (DIB). United States District Judge Scott L. Palk has referred the matter for proposed findings and recommendations. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). The Commissioner has filed the Administrative Record (AR), [Doc. No. 10], and both parties have briefed their positions. For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that the Commissioner's decision be affirmed.
Citations to the parties' briefs reference the Court's CM/ECF pagination.
I. Procedural Background
On April 4, 2018, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an unfavorable decision finding Plaintiff was not disabled and, therefore, not entitled to DIB. AR 83-91. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review. Id. at 6-11. Accordingly, the ALJ's decision constitutes the Commissioner's final decision. See Krauser v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 1324, 1327 (10th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff timely commenced this action for judicial review.
II. The ALJ's Decision
The ALJ followed the multi-step sequential evaluation process required by agency regulations. See Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir. 2009) (explaining process); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The ALJ first determined Plaintiff meets the insured status requirement through December 31, 2021 and has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since March 1, 2016, his alleged onset date. AR 85.
At steps two and three, the ALJ determined Plaintiff suffers from severe degenerative disc disease but that it does not meet or medically equal any of the impairments listed at 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App. 1. Id. at 86.
The ALJ next determined Plaintiff's residual functional capacity (RFC), concluding that:
[he can] perform medium work . . . except lift, carry, push, pull 50 pounds occasionally, sit 6 hours total in an 8 hour workday, stand/walk 4 hours in an 8 hour workday.Id.
Finally, at step four, the ALJ determined Plaintiff can perform his past relevant work as a warehouse worker and is therefore not disabled for purposes of the Social Security Act. See id. at 91.
III. Claim Presented for Judicial Review
According to Plaintiff, the ALJ gave great weight to the consultative examiner's findings but then ignored the evidence relating to Plaintiff's limited range of motion. See Pl.'s Br. at 3-7.
IV. Standard of Review
Judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision is limited to determining whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole and whether the correct legal standards were applied. See Poppa v. Astrue, 569 F.3d 1167, 1169 (10th Cir. 2009). The burden to show prejudicial error on appeal rests with Plaintiff. See Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 409 (2009) ("[T]he burden of showing that an error is harmful normally falls upon the party attacking the agency's determination.").
V. Analysis
Dr. Guila M. Hall, M.D. examined Plaintiff once, at the SSA's request. AR 294-299. In relevant part, Dr. Hall assessed Plaintiff with chronic back pain and recorded his range of motion limitations. See id. The ALJ considered this evidence, noting Dr. Hall's exam showed:
Straight leg test was unable to be performed, as patient was unable to lie supine with both legs extended due to back pain. . . . Ranges of motion that were limited are as follows: back extension 15/25; flexion 45/90; back lateral flexion 20/25 bilaterally; hip flexion 50/100 bilaterally; hip rotation internal rotation 35/40 bilaterally; knee flexion 100/150 bilaterally; shoulder abduction supination 100/150 bilaterally; shoulder forward elevation 100/150 bilaterally.Id. at 88.
Additionally, the ALJ considered the other evidence of record, including the State agency physicians' opinions, who reviewed Dr. Hall's findings and opined Plaintiff could perform medium work. Id. at 87-91 & 56-60, 75-78. The ALJ gave these experts' opinions "considerable weight" and gave "great weight" to Dr. Hall's "examination." Id. at 91.
It appears the ALJ gave only "considerable weight" to the State agency physicians because they believed Plaintiff could perform medium work with no restrictions and the ALJ believed some limitations were appropriate.
Plaintiff is correct that the ALJ used the phrase "great weight" to describe Dr. Hall's examination but did not include any bending or stooping limitations in the RFC. Plaintiff is also correct that an ALJ may not pick and choose only favorable evidence. See Benavidez v. Colvin, 650 F. App'x 619, 621 (10th Cir. 2016) ("[A]n ALJ cannot, without explanation, adopt some restrictions assessed by a physician and reject others that the physician also assessed."). However, the Court finds no reversible error. That is, Dr. Hall did not actually assign any functional limitations based on Plaintiff's limited range of motion. AR 292-299. Indeed, Dr. Hall offered no opinion at all on Plaintiff's functional limitations. See id. Accordingly, the ALJ - despite his favorable view of Dr. Hall's examination - was not obligated to include any bending or stooping limitations in the RFC. See Larsen v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. CIV-18-328-R, 2018 WL 4997916, at *6 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 21, 2018) (rejecting plaintiff's suggestion the ALJ was obligated to include the consulting physician's physical findings in the RFC because "none of these observations constitute a 'medical opinion'" and the examiner "did not identify any functional limitations that would result from [the] physical impairments"), adopted, 2018 WL 4976814 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 15, 2018); see also Giroux v. Berryhill, No. CIV-17-139-STE, 2017 WL 5473730, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 14, 2017) (rejecting allegation that the ALJ ignored the physician's opinion because the physician did not articulate any functional limitations). Furthermore, the ALJ gave "considerable weight" to the State agency physicians, who reviewed Dr. Hall's examination findings and opined Plaintiff could perform medium work with no limitations, see supra at 3, and Plaintiff does not challenge that finding. See Pl.'s Br., passim; see also Giroux, 2017 WL 5473730, at *3 (finding no reversible error where physician did not assess any specific functional limitation and the RFC aligned with the state agency physicians' opinions, to whom the ALJ gave great weight).
In sum, if the ALJ erred at all, it was in assigning weight to Dr. Hall's examination (rather than any underlying opinion). See Moua v. Colvin, 541 F. App'x 794, 797 (10th Cir. 2013) ("Dr. Bhakta's treatment notes do not offer any medical opinions concerning [the plaintiff's] abilities or limitations. . . . Thus, there was no pertinent medical opinion for the ALJ to weigh."). But this minor error did not prejudice Plaintiff and the Court finds no grounds for reversal in the ALJ's decision not to include a bending and/or stooping limitation in Plaintiff's RFC despite his belief that Dr. Hall's "examination" was entitled to "great weight."
See, e.g., Wright v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. CIV-17-1278-C, 2018 WL 4346706, at *5 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 10, 2018) (finding an ALJ's error "in Plaintiff's favor does not constitute reversible error"), adopted, 2018 WL 4344475 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 11, 2018).
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, the Court should affirm the Commissioner's decision.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
The parties are advised of their right to object to this Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636. Any objection must be filed with the Clerk of the District Court by October 21, 2019. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to make timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues addressed herein. See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656 (10th Cir. 1991).
STATUS OF REFERRAL
This Report and Recommendation terminates the referral by the District Judge in this matter.
ENTERED this 7th day of October, 2019.
/s/_________
BERNARD M. JONES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE