Summary
affirming the Commissioner's decision when the record failed to demonstrate an improvement in the plaintiff, but the vocational expert's testimony demonstrated that the plaintiff could still perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy
Summary of this case from Underwood v. AstrueOpinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-337-KKC.
September 28, 2009
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. [R. 9, 10]. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [R. 9] is denied and Defendant's motion for summary judgment [R. 10] is granted.
I. Introduction
Plaintiff filed a prior application for disability insurance benefits on August 14, 2003. The claim was denied initially and upon reconsideration. At Plaintiff's request, a hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Roger Reynolds. ALJ Reynolds subsequently denied Plaintiff's application in a written decision dated August 9, 2005. Plaintiff did not appeal ALJ Reynolds's decision.
Plaintiff filed the present application for supplemental security income on February 17, 2006. The Social Security Administration denied this application initially and subsequently after reconsideration. Plaintiff again requested a hearing, and a hearing was held before ALJ James Kemper on September 19, 2007, in Prestonsburg, Kentucky. Plaintiff appeared and testified at the hearing, as did a Gina Baldwin, a vocational expert. ALJ Kemper denied Plaintiff's present application in a written decision dated October 23, 2007. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review, and, therefore, the ALJ's decision stands as the Commissioner's final decision and is now ripe for review.
II. Discussion A. Standard of Review
B. Overview of the Process
Warner v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.,375 F.3d 387390th Cutlip v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs.,25 F.3d 284285-86th Jones v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 336 F.3d 469475th Key v. Callahan, 109 F.3d 270273th Nelson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.,195 Fed. Appx. 462468th Garner v. Heckler,745 F.2d 383387th See Sharp v. Barnhart,152 Fed. Appx. 503506th See20 C.F.R. § 404.1527Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id.; Jones v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.,336 F.3d 469474Id. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 416.920
D. Analysis
Plaintiff's only argument on appeal is that the ALJ erred by failing to incorporate the postural limitations contained in prior ALJ's residual functional capacity finding. Both ALJs found that Plaintiff was limited to medium work, but the previous ALJ found that Plaintiff was limited to only occasional bending, twisting, kneeling, crouching, crawling, and climbing of stairs and ramps. [Tr. 27]. The present ALJ's residual functional capacity finding did not include these limitations. [Tr. 656].
Because of Plaintiff's prior application, the ALJ was bound by the previous residual functional capacity finding absent evidence of an improvement or deterioration in Plaintiff's condition. Drummond v. Commissioner of Social Security, 126 F.3d 837, 842 (6th Cir. 1997). When discussing Plaintiff's physical limitations, the ALJ identified two records that come after the prior ALJ's decision. These records, however, do not demonstrate an improvement in Plaintiff's condition.
The ALJ first discussed medical records from Juniper Health. [Tr. 657]. These records confirm the prior finding that Plaintiff suffers from degenerative disc disease. [Tr. 1213]. The records also show that Plaintiff was treated conservatively with narcotic pain medications and that Plaintiff later reported that the pain medications were helping. [Tr. 1209]. However, there is evidence that movement of Plaintiff's lower back continued to be restricted and painful. [Tr. 1207]. Accordingly, these records do not demonstrate improvement in Plaintiff's physical condition.
The ALJ also discussed a consultative examination completed by Dr. Rita Ratliff. [Tr. 1173-1176]. Dr. Ratliff first noted that Plaintiff was a difficult patient. [Tr. 1174]. He did not answer questions, he would not do any range of motion testing, and he did not make any effort during the strength testing of his lower extremities. [Tr, 1174-1176]. Because of this, Dr. Ratliff stated that she could not comment on any restrictions that Plaintiff may have due to his "suboptimal" exam. [Tr. 1176]. Accordingly, Dr. Ratliff's opinion cannot provide evidence that Plaintiff's physical limitations have improved since the date of the prior ALJ's decision.
Additionally, the record contains a medical opinion from Dr. Anzures, a state agency medical consultant. Dr. Anzures opined that the evidence in the record did not establish any postural limitations. [Tr. 1184]. However, Dr. Anzures's discussion of Plaintiff's physical limitations appears to be based on Dr. Ratliff's consultative examination. [Tr. 1183, 1184, 1187]. Thus, Dr. Anzures's opinion cannot provide evidence of improvement in Plaintiff's physical limitations for the same reasons Dr. Ratliff's opinion cannot provide such evidence.
Because the record fails to demonstrate an improvement in Plaintiff's physical condition, the ALJ erred by not incorporating the postural limitations included in the prior residual functional capacity. However, this case need not be remanded because the record demonstrates that Plaintiff could still perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy despite his postural limitations.
The vocational expert testified that Plaintiff could work as a machine tender, hand packer, or assembler and that a significant number of these jobs existed in the regional and national economy. [Tr. 1421]. The Dictionary of Occupational Titles ("DOT") states that the jobs of assembler and hand packer occasionally involve stooping and do not involve climbing, balancing, kneeling, crouching, or crawling. DOT § 369.687-010, 1991 WL 673070 (assembler); DOT § 559.687-074, 1991 WL 683797 (hand packer). The job of machine tender does not involve any of the postural positions precluded by Plaintiff's residual functional capacity. DOT § 699.685-050, 1991 WL 678869. Thus, Plaintiff can perform these jobs despite his postural limitations. Therefore, the ALJ's failure to consider Plaintiff's limitations does not undermine his finding that there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform. Accordingly, the vocational expert's testimony provides substantial evidence for this finding and the ALJ's opinion must be affirmed.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated, the Court HEREBY ORDERS:
(1) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [R. 9] is DENIED; and
(2) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [R. 10] is GRANTED.