Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hainz v. Colvin

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Southern Division

August 25, 2014

LANCE M. HAINZ, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

ORDER AND OPINION AFFIRMING COMMISSIONER'S FINAL DECISION DENYING BENEFITS

ORTRIE D. SMITH, Senior District Judge.

Pending is Plaintiff's appeal of the Commissioner of Social Security=s final decision denying her application for disability benefits. The Commissioner's decision is affirmed.

I.

Plaintiff was born in April 1966, and has prior work experience as a plasterer and a concrete laborer. Plaintiff claimed disability beginning October 31, 2004, due to "pinched nerves in back, legs, arms, numbness, narrow disc, mental problems from head injury." The administrative law judge ("ALJ") issued his decision on April 25, 2012, finding, among other things, that Plaintiff:

has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except the claimant can occasionally lift and carry 20 pounds, and frequently lift and carry less than 10 pounds; the claimant can sit for 8 hours a day, but only for 2 hours at a time; the claimant can stand for 4 hours a day, but only for 1 hour at a time; the claimant can walk for 3 hours a day, but only for 1 hour at time; the claimant can occasionally push/pull with the lower extremities; the claimant can occasionally climb stairs and ramps; the claimant can occasionally bend, crouch, stoop, kneel, and crawl; the claimant should avoid working on ladders or scaffolds or otherwise at heights or around hazardous unprotected moving equipment; the claimant can occasionally operate motor vehicles; the claimant should avoid extreme temperatures, humidity, dust, fumes, poor ventilation, or extreme noise in the environment. In addition this person does not handle stress well, and should not be at a job involving high stress such as a job requiring fast paced activity or strict and explicit quotas deadlines schedules, or involving frequent and unusual changes in the work setting. The claimant cannot sustain high levels of concentration, such as sustained precision and attention to detail. The person can sustain concentration on simple repetitive tasks within the range of average. The claimant should not have a job requiring contact with the public, or requiring close personal interaction with coworkers.

R. 33. The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled.

II.

"[R]eview of the Secretary=s decision [is limited] to a determination whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence on the Record as a whole. Substantial evidence is evidence which reasonable minds would accept as adequate to support the Secretary=s conclusion. [The Court] will not reverse a decision simply because some evidence may support the opposite conclusion." Mitchell v. Shalala, 25 F.3d 712, 714 (8th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). Though advantageous to the Commissioner, this standard also requires that the Court consider evidence that fairly detracts from the final decision. Forsythe v. Sullivan, 926 F.2d 774, 775 (8th Cir. 1991) (citing Hutsell v. Sullivan, 892 F.2d 747, 749 (8th Cir. 1989)). Substantial evidence means "more than a mere scintilla" of evidence; rather, it is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Gragg v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 932, 938 (8th Cir. 2010).

A. Weight of Opinions

Essentially, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly weighed each medical opinion of Record. Plaintiff argues that the ALJ either assigned too much weight or too little weight to each opinion. Plaintiff's arguments are without merit and the Court concludes that the ALJ properly assessed Plaintiff's mental and physical RFC.

First, Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred in partially discounting the opinion of Brian Teeter, MD, and accorded two much weight to Dr. Corsolini's opinion. Dr. Teeter completed a Medical Source Statement and opined that Plaintiff was limited to lifting less than 10 pounds, and less than one hour of sitting, standing, or walking, in a normal workday. R. 605. He opined that Plaintiff could never climb, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, or crawl. R. 606. Dr. Teeter opined that Plaintiff should avoid any exposure to extreme cold; extreme heat; weather; wetness/humidity; dust/fumes; vibration; hazards and heights. R. 606. Dr. Corsolini opined that Plaintiff could occasionally lift up to 20 pounds; sit for two hours at a time, and for eight hours in a normal workday; stand for one hour at a time, and for four hours in a normal workday; walk for one hour at a time, and for three hours in a normal workday; could occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, and climb stairs and ramps; but could not climb ladders or scaffolds. R. 756-61.

The Court concludes there is substantial evidence on the Record as a whole to support the ALJ's decision to assign little weight as to Dr. Teeter's finding that Plaintiff is restricted to work at less than the sedentary level, and great weight to Dr. Teeter's opinion as to Plaintiff's environmental restrictions. There is also substantial evidence to support the ALJ's decision to assign great weight to Dr. Corsolini's limitation findings and little weight to Dr. Corsolini's opinion that Plaintiff has no restrictions in environmental exposures. The limitations as described by Dr. Teeter are inconsistent with the claimant's conservative treatment, the medical imaging evidence, and the findings of physical exams. The findings were also inconsistent with the medical opinion of Dr. Corsolini, who is a specialist in physical medicine and rehabilitation. In this case, the Record contained differing medical opinions and it was proper for the Court to resolve conflicts between them. Regarding Plaintiff's environmental restrictions, it was proper to resolve the conflict in favor of Dr. Teeter's opinion that Plaintiff has environmental restrictions and give little weight to Dr. Corsolini's opinion that Plaintiff did not have any restrictions as the evidence shows that Plaintiff suffers from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and sleep apnea related symptoms that would cause restrictions to his exposure to pulmonary irritants.

Next, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ did not give appropriate weight to Dr. Forsyth's opinion. Dr. Forsyth opined that Plaintiff was able to understand and remember simple and even moderately complex instructions and that sustaining concentration and persistence in such tasks would be adequate from a mental status perspective. R. 749. Dr. Forsyth opined that Plaintiff's ability to interact socially and adapt to his environment would also be adequate for simple and possibly even moderately complex tasks. Id. The ALJ properly assigned great weight to Dr. Forsyth's opinion as it was generally consistent with the other medical evidence. Further, the RFC was even more restrictive than Dr. Forsyth's opinion as to Plaintiff's impairments. For example, Plaintiff benefited by the more restrictive RFC as the ALJ considered Plaintiff's subjective complaints regarding difficulties in concentration, persistence, and pace. R. 37.

Plaintiff also takes issue with the weight assigned to Dr. McGehee's opinion. Dr. McGehee saw Plaintiff on three occasions. He reported only slight limitations in Plaintiff's ability to understand and remember simple and even moderately complex instructions. Dr. McGehee reported that Plaintiff has a moderate limitation in maintaining attention and concentration for extended periods, and marked limitations in the ability to complete a normal workday or workweek without interruption from psychologically based symptoms. R. 506, 523, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.