Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2018cv00077 - Document 18 (W.D. Ky. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lanny King on 7/8/2019; Because Plaintiff's arguments are unpersuasive and the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ's) decision is supported by substantial evidence, the Commissioner's final decision is hereby AFFIRMED and Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED. cc: Counsel (CDF)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security MANDY N. WILLIAMS Doc. 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY BOWLING GREEN DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. : CV LLK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT . NANCY A. BERRYHILL, A ti g Co issio er of So ial Se urity MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This atte is efo e the Cou t o Plai tiff's o plai t seeki g judi ial e ie , pu sua t to U.“.C. § g , of the fi al de isio of the Co I o e ““I e efits. The fa t a d la su issio e de i g he lai fo “upple e tal “e u it a ies of Plai tiff a d Defe da t a e at Do kets # The pa ties ha e o se ted to the ju isdi tio of the u de sig ed Magist ate Judge to dete a d . i e this ase, ith a appeal l i g efo e the “i th Ci uit Cou t of Appeals. Do ket # . Be ause Plai tiff’s a gu e ts a e u pe suasi e a d the Ad i ist ati e La Judge’s ALJ’s de isio is suppo ted su sta tial e ide e, the Cou t ill AFFIRM the Co issio e ’s fi al de isio a d DI“MI““ Plai tiff’s o plai t. Plai tiff’s first a d se o d argu e ts The ALJ fou d that Plai tiff suffe s f o the follo i g se e e, o o atio all sig ifi a t, i pai e ts: dege e ati e dis disease of the lu COPD , a spi e, h o i o st u ti e pul o a disease ofas ial pai s d o e, dep essio , a d a iet . Ad i ist ati e Re o d AR at . Plai tiff akes th ee a gu e ts. Fi st, she a gues that the ALJ e ed i ot fi di g that she suffe s f o se e e e i al dege e ati e dis disease, ight shoulde i pai e t, a d post t au ati st ess diso de PT“D . Plai tiff’s se o d a gu e t is elated to he fi st a gu e t. “he a gues that the ALJ’s failu e to e og ize these i pai i pai e ts as se e e i pai e ts o stitutes e e si le e o e ause the e ts esulted i additio al li itatio s ot i luded i the ALJ’s esidual fu tio al apa it RFC Dockets.Justia.com fi di g. The Cou t ill o side Plai tiff’s fi st a d se o d a gu e ts as the elate to ea h allegedl se e e i pai e t. Cer i al dege erati e dis disease Plai tiff a gues that he e i al dege e ati e dis disease is a se e e i pai e t that esults i se so a d oto loss of the left ha d a d li its he a ilit to use he [left] ha ds a d a g aspi g a d a ipulatio . Do ket # at . Ho e e , she ade o su h lai i he disa ilit appli atio o at the ad i ist ati e hea i g. AR at , . At the ad i ist ati e hea i g, Plai tiff’s ou sel ga e a ope i g state e t a d e a i ed Plai tiff ega di g he i pai s fo e ts. AR at . Ph si all , the fo us as Plai tiff’s alleged i a ilit to sta d/ alk fo lo g pe iods of ti e. Id. Plai tiff did ot e tio a ha d, g aspi g, o a ipulati e li itatio . The o t olli g o atio al h potheti al o te plated o su h li itatio . AR at . The o atio al e pe t VE as ot e a i ed a out the effe t of a su h a li itatio o the a aila ilit of ide tified jo s. Id. C oss e a i atio fo used o the o atio al i pa t of a eed fo a sit sta d optio . Id. A ALJ is u de o o ligatio to i estigate a lai ot p ese ted at the ti e of the appli atio fo e efits a d ot offe ed at the hea i g as a asis fo disa ilit . Pe a v. Sec’y of Health & Hu a Servs., F. d , th Ci . . [A]t least he lai a ts a e ep ese ted ou sel, the ust aise all issues a d e ide e at thei ad i ist ati e hea i gs i o de to p ese e the o appeal. Mea el v. Co ’r of Soc. Sec., F. d , th Ci . . The “i th Ci uit a d this Cou t ha e e og ized a d applied these p i iples f o Pe a a d Mea el. See e.g. Nejat v. Co ’r, F. App’ , th Ci . Gi e Nejat's failu e to list o esit i his appli atio a d the s a t e ide e of o esit i the e o d, the ALJ p ope l e aluated this Although ou sel e tio ed, i passi g, that Plai tiff has e k pai ith adi ulopath , u ess p o le s i the left a , the ALJ asked Plai tiff he e the e k pai sp eads to, a d Plai tiff espo ded [i]t goes th ough shoulde s. The go u a d ti gl . AR at , . Plai tiff did ot testif that she suffe s f o o goi g ha d, g aspi g, o a ipulati e li itatio o othe ise i di ate that su h a li itatio as a i po ta t aspe t of he disa ilit lai . alleged o ditio . iti g Pe a ; Alas ar v. Co W.D. K Ma . , ’r, No. : CV CHL, WL , at * Alas a ai ed he lai of disa li g de e tia fo faili g to aise [the] lai i [the] appli atio fo e efits a d ot addu i g all ele a t e ide e at the ad i ist ati e hea i g. iti g Pe a ; Scott v. Co ’r, No. : CV “ ott ai ed he ilate al k ee i pai HBB, WL , at * W.D. K . Ju e , e t lai e ause [t]he ad i ist ati e e o d sho s that [she] did ot otif the ALJ a out he ilate al k ee o ditio o allege a li itatio i fu tio e ause of the o ditio . iti g Mea el . Plai tiff ai ed he lai that the ALJ e ed i ot fi di g that she suffe s f o se e e e i al dege e ati e dis disease, hi h allegedl esults i se so a d oto loss of the left ha d a d li its he a ilit to use he [left] ha ds a d a s fo g aspi g a d a ipulatio Do ket # at , e ause she ade o su h lai i he disa ilit appli atio o at the ad i ist ati e hea i g. E e if it as ot ai ed, Plai tiff’s a gu e t is u pe suasi e. I Jul the e e ge oo e ause left a still u – has a iet . AR at “ hoole , M.D., oted that Plai tiff sa s he [left] a is u , Plai tiff p ese ted to . I August a d a o l feel digits … MRI does i di ate dis ulges at C a d C a d [ ode ate] ste osis at the C le el. AR at MRI at AR . Plai tiff poi ts to othi g i the ad i ist ati e e o d sho i g that she follo ed up ith a eu osu geo o as still e pe ie i g left a u ess i Jul hea i g as held. No edi al sou e i di ated that Plai tiff’s i pai li itatio s tha fou d the ALJ. The e e diag osis of a i pai fu tio al li itatio s o e e the e iste e of a se e e i pai e ui e e t. See Despi s v. Co efe e i g . D . “ hoole i di ated that she [ ]ill efe [Plai tiff] to eu osu geo [as soo as possi le]. AR at i pai , Ba a a 'r, F. App’ , , he the ad i ist ati e e ts ause g eate fu tio al e t is ot i di ati e of disa li g e t satisf i g the th Ci . The e e e iste e of those e ts … does ot esta lish that Despi s as sig ifi a tl li ited f o pe fo o th du atio i g asi o k a ti ities fo a o ti uous pe iod of ti e. ; Higgs v. Sec’y, F. d , th Ci . [M]e e diag osis of a th itis... sa s othi g a out the se e it of the o ditio . . Right shoulder i pair e t Plai tiff ai ed he lai that the ALJ e ed i ot fi di g that she suffe s f o a se e e ight shoulde i pai e t, hi h allegedl esults i de eased a ge of otio a d i a ilit to lift the a a o e the shoulde Do ket # at , e ause she ade o su h lai i he disa ilit appli atio o at the ad i ist ati e hea i g. Additio all , Plai tiff’s a gu e t is u pe suasi e e ause the o l e ide e she poi ts to i suppo t of he lai is a De e e ote i hi h D . “ hoole i di ated that Plai tiff [s]tates ight shoulde has ee hu ti g o se, u a le to lift a o e shoulde [ ut] [d]e ies e e t fall o i ju ; o se ed de eased [ a ge of otio ] ight shoulde , ode ate te de ess, a d assessed shoulde pai . Do ket # at efe e i g ote at AR , . The e e allegatio of pai a d li itatio o a si gle o asio is ot i di ati e of disa li g fu tio al li itatio s o e e the e iste e of a se e e i pai e t satisf i g the o th du atio e ui e e t. PTSD The ALJ fou d that Plai tiff suffe s f o se e e, o o atio all sig ifi a t, dep essio a d a iet , hi h li it he to ei g a le to sustai o e t atio fo hou seg e ts th oughout a hou o kda . AR at , . Plai tiff a gues that the ALJ e ed i ot fi di g that she also suffe s f o se e e post t au ati st ess diso de PT“D , hi h esults i i te uptio s i o e t atio . Do ket # at . Additio all , the ALJ fou d that Plai tiff’s dep essio a d a iet li it he as follo s: “he is li ited to si ple a d outi e o k ith o asse l li e o p odu tio uota o k. “he a i te a t ith supe iso s a d o o ke s as eeded fo task o pletio ut she a ot i te a t ith the ge e al pu li . AR at . Plai tiff has ot sho that the e is a sig ifi a t diffe e e et ee the ALJ’s fi di gs ega di g he dep essio a d a iet a d he suggested fi di gs ega di g he PT“D. No edi al sou e opi ed that Plai tiff’s PT“D ould i te fe e ith he a ilit to o e t ate o assessed spe ifi o k elated li itatio s. “he ites o e ide e o autho it to sho that i lusio of PT“D as a se e e i pai ould ha e ha ged the ALJ's assess e t of he fu tio al li itatio s. Hill v. Co th Ci . ’r, e t F. App’ , . Thus, [Plai tiff’s] u so a gu e t that the ALJ failed to de ote PT“D as a se e e li itatio is ai ed o , at o st, o stituted ha less e o . Hill, F. App’ at . I o siste y et ee the ALJ’s RFC fi di g a d the o trolli g o atio al hypotheti al Plai tiff’s thi d a d fi al a gu e t is that a e a d is e ui ed due to i o siste et ee the ALJ’s RFC fi di g a d the o t olli g o atio al h potheti al. “pe ifi all , although the ALJ fou d that Plai tiff is li ited to si ple a d outi e o k AR at Plai tiff a u de sta d, e e e , a d a , the h potheti al asked the VE to assu e that out o e tha si ple tasks ut ot o ple tasks AR at . No p i iple of ad i ist ati e la o o o se se e ui es us to e a d a ase i uest of a pe fe t opi io u less the e is easo to elie e that e a d ight lead to a diffe e t esult. Kor ecky v. Co 'r, F. App' . The i o siste , th Ci . uoti g Fisher v. Sec'y, F. d , th Ci . that Plai tiff ide tifies as ot sig ifi a t e ause the VE testified that the th ee jo s she a still pe fo gi e the ALJ’s RFC fi di gs a e u skilled. AR at . U skilled o k is o k hi h eeds little o o judg e t to do si ple duties that a e lea ed o the jo i a sho t pe iod of ti e. C.F.R. § . a . The asi e tal de a ds of o petiti e, e u e ati e, u skilled e phasis added o k i lude the a ilities o a sustai ed asis to u de sta d, a e e e si ple e phasis added i st u tio s. “o ial “e u it Ruli g ““R , WL out, a d , at If, i te uptio s i o e t atio Do ket # at , Plai tiff is efe i g to he epo ts of ha i g t o pa i atta k dail , hi h take to i utes to get o e AR at , the ALJ i pli itl fou d those epo ts to e edi le o l to the e te t of the ALJ’s e tal RFC fi di gs. * . Additio all , the e is a ple ase la autho it sho i g that the spe ifi jo s the ALJ fou d Plai tiff a still pe fo do ot e ui e a a ilit to u de sta d, e e e , a d a out o e tha si ple tasks. Order Be ause Plai tiff’s a gu e ts a e u pe suasi e a d the Ad i ist ati e La Judge’s ALJ’s de isio is suppo ted su sta tial e ide e, the Co issio e ’s fi al de isio is he e AFFIRMED a d Plai tiff’s o plai t is DI“MI““ED. July 8, 2019 See e.g. Staples v. Co ’r, No. : , WL , at * M.D. Te . Ja . , “taples a pe fo the jo s of s all pa ts asse le Di tio a of O upatio al Titles DOT . a d i spe to /ha d pa kage DOT . ased o a o atio al h potheti al o te plati g that she a u de sta d, e e e a d a out o l si ple i st u tio s. ; Ngoc Tra v. Co ’r, No. ED CV PLA, WL , at * C.D. Cal. Ap il , Ngo T a a pe fo jo of ele t o i o ke DOT . ased o a h potheti al that assu ed he/she a u de sta d, e e e , a d a out si ple jo i st u tio s. .
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
