Court: District Court, E.D. Washington; March 5, 2014; Federal District Court
Plaintiff Ivan C. Reutov applied for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) in September 2008, claiming disability since January 1, 2006. The Commissioner of Social Security denied these applications, prompting Reutov, represented by the Law Office of Dana C. Madsen, to seek judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 1388(c)(3). The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Victor E. Bianchini by Chief District Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson on February 3, 2014.
The procedural history shows that after an initial denial, a hearing took place before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) James W. Sherry on September 21, 2010, where Reutov testified with a Russian interpreter and a vocational expert also provided testimony. On November 3, 2010, ALJ Sherry issued a decision denying the benefits, concluding Reutov was not disabled under the Social Security Act. This decision became final on April 11, 2012, when the Social Security Appeals Council denied further review. Reutov filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on May 29, 2012.
Subsequent motions for summary judgment were filed by both parties, with the Commissioner’s motion being granted while Reutov’s motion was denied, leading to the dismissal of the case. The discussion included the definition of disability under the Social Security Act, which requires both a medical condition that prevents substantial gainful activity and consideration of the plaintiff's age, education, and work experience in the context of available jobs in the national economy.
The Commissioner has implemented a five-step process to evaluate disability claims. Step one assesses if the individual is engaged in substantial gainful activity; if so, benefits are denied. If not, step two evaluates whether the individual has a severe impairment. If no severe impairment exists, the claim is denied. If severe, step three compares the impairment against listed impairments, where meeting one results in a presumption of disability. If not, step four examines whether the impairment prevents past work, considering the individual’s residual functional capacity (RFC). If the individual can perform past work, they are not considered disabled. If not, step five determines if the individual can perform other work available in the national economy based on their RFC, age, education, and experience.
The initial burden of proof lies with the claimant to demonstrate that an impairment hinders their ability to perform previous work. At step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove that the claimant can engage in substantial gainful activity and that a significant number of jobs exist in the economy they can perform.
Judicial review of the Commissioner’s decisions is limited; a court must uphold these decisions unless a legal error occurred or they lack substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is defined as evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion and is more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance. The court evaluates the entire record, considering both supporting and contradicting evidence.
The Commissioner is responsible for resolving conflicts in evidence, and the Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner if evidence allows for multiple rational interpretations. A decision can only be overturned if the legal standards were improperly applied, even if supported by substantial evidence. In this case, the ALJ determined that the Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since January 1, 2006, and met the Social Security Act's insured status requirements through June 30, 2009. The ALJ identified the Plaintiff's degenerative disc disease as a medically determinable impairment but classified it as non-severe, concluding the Plaintiff was not under a disability and thus not entitled to benefits from January 1, 2006, to November 3, 2010. This decision became final on April 11, 2012, when the Appeals Council denied the Plaintiff's review request.
The Plaintiff's argument centers on whether the ALJ's analysis of the severity of the degenerative disc disease adhered to applicable laws and was supported by substantial evidence. Under the Social Security Regulations, a "severe" impairment must significantly limit basic work activities for at least 12 consecutive months. The step two analysis serves as a screening mechanism for minor complaints, and an impairment is deemed non-severe if it results in only slight abnormalities with minimal impact on work ability. The claimant bears the burden of proof at this stage, and the ALJ concluded that the Plaintiff's impairment did not lead to significant vocational limitations for the required duration. The Court concurs that the ALJ's decision was backed by substantial evidence.
Plaintiff claimed a condition onset date of January 1, 2006, yet the earliest medical record is from March 17, 2006, which documents a blood test prior to an overseas trip, with no mention of back pain. The next physician visit around January 24, 2007, lacks detailed records. On June 1, 2007, Plaintiff reported dizziness at Spokane Falls Family Clinic, again not mentioning back pain. During an August 10, 2007 visit, Plaintiff requested a handicap placard and cited neck and low back pain along with balance issues, leading Dr. Goodwin to diagnose degenerative disc disease but without further findings or imaging. Following a motor vehicle accident on December 21, 2007, Plaintiff reported aggravated chronic pain; however, Dr. Goodwin assessed only mild residual pain with no acute findings. On January 22, 2008, a visit for a medication refill showed a diagnosis of chronic back pain, but the physician's assistant noted no discomfort or limitations. A November 2008 note linked back pain to blood pressure issues. A consultative examination by Dr. Weir on January 15, 2009, indicated Plaintiff walked without a limp and used a cane improperly, with invalid test results due to poor effort. Dr. Weir diagnosed degenerative disc disease but stated Plaintiff had no restrictions on standing, walking, or sitting and did not need an assistive device. An MRI in February 2009 revealed minimal findings and no significant changes from a prior MRI in 2002, while a February 2010 MRI confirmed stable degenerative changes. This evidence supports the ALJ's conclusion that Plaintiff's condition was not severe.
Plaintiff disputes the ALJ's conclusion regarding their disability claim, referencing an April 2009 report from physician's assistant Marty Malone, who documented decreased range of motion, sensation, and muscle strength, and assessed moderate to marked limitations in work-related activities due to neck and lower back pain. Malone opined that Plaintiff could only perform sedentary work. The ALJ assigned little weight to Malone’s assessment, citing that Malone is not classified as an acceptable medical source under Social Security Regulations. The ALJ noted inconsistencies in Malone's opinion, which appeared largely based on Plaintiff's subjective complaints, deemed not fully credible by the ALJ. The ALJ's evaluation was supported by MRI results, limited treatment history, and an assessment from a consultative examiner, leading to the conclusion that Malone’s opinion lacked substantial medical backing. Although Plaintiff argued that Malone should be considered a treating physician's opinion due to collaboration with a physician, the ALJ found no evidence of close supervision over Malone's assessment. Even if Malone were regarded as an acceptable medical source, the ALJ provided adequate reasons for discounting his opinion based on contradicting evidence and Plaintiff's questionable credibility.
The ALJ's decision to discount Mr. Malone's medical opinion was supported by substantial evidence, adhering to the higher standard for "acceptable medical source" opinions. The Plaintiff contended that the ALJ should have evaluated the evidence differently and favored Mr. Malone's opinion. However, it is the Commissioner’s responsibility to resolve evidentiary conflicts, as outlined in Magallanes v. Bowen and Richardson. The Court emphasized that if evidence allows for multiple reasonable interpretations, it cannot replace the Commissioner's judgment, citing Allen v. Heckler. The Commissioner’s findings are conclusive if backed by substantial evidence or if conflicting evidence supports either a finding of disability or non-disability, as stated in Sprague v. Bowen. After a thorough review of the administrative record, the Court confirmed substantial evidence supporting the Commissioner’s decision, including objective medical evidence and credible medical opinions. The ALJ appropriately weighed the medical evidence and the Plaintiff's subjective claims of symptoms. Consequently, there was no reversible error, leading to the denial of Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and the granting of the Commissioner's motion. The Court ordered that the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied, the Commissioner's motion is granted, and the case is to be closed.
