Opinion
Civil Action No. 98-2185-GTV
October 31, 2000
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Barbara A. Hinton brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and D. Kan. Rule 83.7, seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the Commissioner) denying her application for disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act (the Act). See 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. For the reasons set forth below, the Commissioner's decision is affirmed.
I. Procedural Background
On September 5, 1995, Plaintiff filed her application for disability benefits, claiming disability since March 24, 1995. Her application was denied both initially and on reconsideration. At Plaintiff's request, an administrative law judge (ALJ) held a hearing on June 17, 1996, at which Plaintiff and her counsel were present. On September 5, 1996, the ALJ rendered a decision in which he determined that Plaintiff was not under a "disability" as defined by the Act. After the ALJ's unfavorable decision, Plaintiff requested review by the Appeals Counsel. On February 19, 1998, the Appeals Counsel denied Plaintiff's request for review. Thus, the ALJ's decision stands as the final decision of the Commissioner.
II. Standard of Review
The Commissioner's findings are binding on this court if supported by substantial evidence. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Dixon v. Heckler, 811 F.2d 506, 508 (10th Cir. 1987). The court's review is limited to determining "whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's decision and whether the Commissioner applied the proper legal standards." Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421, 1425 (10th Cir. 1996) (quoting Castellano v. Secretary of Health Human Servs., 26 F.3d 1027, 1028 (10th Cir. 1994)). Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). The court may not reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ or the Commissioner. See Hamilton v. Secretary of Health Human Servs., 961 F.2d 1495, 1500 (10th Cir. 1992).
III. Factual Background
Plaintiff was thirty-nine years old at the time of the hearing. Plaintiff alleged that she became disabled on March 24, 1995 after re-injuring her back at work. Plaintiff alleged disability due to chronic low back pain from degenerative disk disease and a bulging disk condition. Plaintiff alleged a limited tolerance for sitting, standing, walking, bending, and lifting. The medical evidence establishes that Plaintiff has been diagnosed with degenerative disk disease and a bulging disk. Plaintiff first injured her lower back in July 1993; Plaintiff did not return to work after her second back injury in March 1995.
Plaintiff testified that she performed light household chores including dusting, picking up and organizing the house. She stated that she did laundry, prepared meals, and grocery shopped with some assistance. Plaintiff's leisure activities included reading, listening to the radio, and spending time with her children. Plaintiff testified that she drove her children to their activities, ran errands, attended weekly church, and occasionally went to a movie or out to dinner. Plaintiff also stated that she walked 0.7 miles per day. Her past relevant work included employment as a physical therapist.
IV. Analysis
To qualify for disability benefits, a claimant must establish that she is unable to engage in substantial gainful activity due to a severe impairment expected to result in death or last a continuous period of twelve months. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). If the claimant establishes that she is unable to perform her past relevant work because of a medically determinable impairment, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that the claimant can perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. See Frey v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 508, 512 (10th Cir. 1987). The Commissioner may meet this burden by relying on either the medical-vocational guidelines or vocational expert testimony.
The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff could not return to her past relevant work as a physical therapist, but that she could, despite her impairments, perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. Therefore, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not under a "disability" as defined by the Act.
Plaintiff urges the court to reverse the final decision of the Commissioner because taking the record as a whole, the ALJ's decision is not supported by substantial evidence and was not made according to applicable law. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the ALJ erred: (1) in failing to give substantial weight to the opinion of Dr. William Hopkins, Plaintiff's treating physician; (2) in finding that Plaintiff failed to follow the prescribed treatment; (3) in finding Plaintiff's testimony only partially credible; and (4) because the ALJ's conclusion that Plaintiff could perform other work is not supported by substantial evidence.
Examination of the record reveals that the ALJ thoroughly evaluated the medical evidence, testimony, and record as a whole. The court has reviewed the record and concludes that the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence and that the Commissioner applied the proper legal standards. The court finds that the ALJ applied the proper legal standards in evaluating the opinion of Dr. Hopkins, Plaintiff's treating physician. The court further finds that the ALJ properly weighed Plaintiff's subjective complaints of disabling pain — in particular her need to lie down after an activity — against the objective medical evidence and in light of Plaintiff's daily activities and limitations. The court also finds substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ's conclusions that Plaintiff failed to follow the prescribed treatment and that Plaintiff could perform other work despite her impairments.
While the court agrees with Plaintiff that she cannot be forced to have back surgery, there is other evidence in the record that Plaintiff failed to follow the prescribed treatment. For example, Plaintiff chose to discontinue a physician recommended work-hardening program after attending only a couple of sessions because she felt it aggravated her back pain.
V. Conclusion
The court has thoroughly reviewed the record and concludes that taking the record as a whole, the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence and that the Commissioner applied the proper legal standards. The court therefore affirms the Commissioner's decision.
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.
The case is closed.
Copies of this order shall be mailed to counsel of record for the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.