Opinion
C.A. NO. 03-6931.
October 19, 2004
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Gilbert R. Schaffer ("Schaffer") seeks judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, who found that plaintiff was not entitled to Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income Disability ("SSI") under titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act ("Act"), 42 U.S.C. sections 401-433, 1381-1383f. Presently before the court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons which follow, we find the ALJ was supported by substantial evidence when he concluded the benefits should be denied. Accordingly, the motion of the plaintiff will be denied, and the motion of the defendant will be granted.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When reviewing a denial of a claimant's application, a reviewing court applies the "substantial evidence" standard.See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Burns v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 113 (3d Cir. 2002). "Substantial evidence is `more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate'." Ventura v. Shalala, 55 F.3d 900, 901 (3d Cir. 1995) (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)). This court is not "empowered to weigh the evidence or substitute its conclusions for those of the fact-finder."Williams v. Sullivan, 970 F.2d 1178, 1182 (3d Cir. 1992).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Schaffer protectively filed an application for DIB and SSI on March 22, 2002, R-14, alleging the onset of permanent disability resulting from a schizoaffective disorder on November 10, 2000. R-73. After his application was initially denied, Schaffer requested and was granted a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"), which was held on May 15, 2003. R-14, R-102. After reviewing the evidence and hearing testimony from Schaffer, Schaffer's father, a medical expert and a vocational expert, the ALJ determined that Schaffer was not eligible for benefits. Specifically, the ALJ found that Schaffer's "psychotic symptoms are controllable with medication, and abstinence from (illegal) drugs," and thus that he "retains the residual functional capacity for work at all exertional levels which do not involve complex job instructions or extensive contact with co-workers, supervisors or the public." R-19. The ALJ's decision noted Schaffer's history of illegal drug use and failure to consistently adhere to his prescribed medication, as well as his successful resumption of college study. R-16.
At his hearing before the ALJ, Schaffer testified that he hears indistinguishable voices "every hour, every half hour," and that he "blare[s] out no-no" when he hears them. R-39. He testified that he was treated at the Lenapee Valley Foundation for his schizoaffective disorder, R-33, and his medical records reflect treatment from 2001, R-209-15, through 2003. R-335-48. He testified to taking ativan, ambien, cogentin, respirdal, as well as roxicet for a back condition. R-76. Although Schaffer has a history of back ailments, including corrective surgery, he did not claim that his back condition — or any physical condition — was a factor in his alleged inability to work. R-14.
The ALJ found that Schaffer's schizoaffective disorder was a "mild impairment," R-18, "controllable with medication and abstinence from drugs," and thus that he "retains the residual functional capacity for work at all exertional levels." R-19. In addition, the ALJ determined that Schaffer retained the RFC to return to his past work. R-19. Schaffer's employment options, as proposed by the vocational expert and accepted by the ALJ, include pizza deliverer, materials handler and surveillance systems operator. Id.
In his motion for summary judgment, Schaffer argues that the ALJ erred by (1) finding that Schaffer's schizophrenia failed to fulfill the requirements for benefits, (2) rejecting the opinion of the treating physician, (3) improperly discounting complaints of pain, and (4) failing to consider Schaffer's father's testimony.
DISCUSSION
A treating physician's opinion will be given controlling weight when it is "well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record." 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(2). An ALJ may reject a treating physician's opinion outright only on the basis of contradictory medical evidence, but may afford a treating physician's opinion more or less weight depending upon the extent to which supporting explanations are provided." Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 429 (3d Cir. 1999). Final determinations of the ultimate issue of a claimant's disability are reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.927.
The ALJ was supported by substantial evidence when he concluded that Schaffer's stabilization and adherence to his medication regimen reflected an ability to work despite a mild impairment, and when he found that Schaffer's inability to retain employment was not health related. R-16-18. Although Schaffer continued to hear indistinguishable voices, treating physicians noted his continued stabilization, R-196, R-214, and his creation of organized thoughts. R-171. Schaffer himself testified that the voices "suggest good things," and that he sometimes requested the voices. R-234. Medical reports also reflected Schaffer's progress when he was adhering to his medication regimen. Id., 211, 333, 345. Dr. Sneh Burman, a treating psychologist, reported on May 16, 2002, that Schaffer was doing better, was goal directed and calmer. Id. Dr. Burman's notes from April and May of 2002 report that Schaffer's condition was improving, R-342, and in January, 2003, he told another psychiatrist, Alissa Brown, that "overall . . . things are fine" and that his kitchen job was "going well" after seven weeks. R-328. Notably, this statement was made nine months after Schaffer had applied for DIB and SSI benefits, and just four months prior to his hearing before the ALJ. R-14. Finally, Schaffer's father testified that Schaffer's employment history has been marked by conflict with superiors, because "he just doesn't get along with whoever supervises him." R-64. Such conflicts included "put[ting] a screwdriver on the boss . . . because he didn't like what the boss was saying." Id. This dispute resulted in Schaffer's termination. Id.
In considering the impact of Schaffer's schizophrenia, we find the ALJ was supported by substantial evidence when he rejected the conclusions of the treating physician, Dr. Ricardo Nunez, and accepted the testimony of the examining medical expert, Dr. Cohen. Dr. Nunez stated that Schaffer suffered from poor focus, endurance and coping abilities. Additionally, Dr. Nunez noted that Schaffer had marked difficulties in maintaining social functioning and deficiencies in concentration, persistence or pace, and that Schaffer claimed four or more episodes of decompensation. R-18. The testimony of both Schaffer and his father supported these assertions.
These deficiencies, as noted by Dr. Nunez, included the inability to (1) maintain attention for two hour periods, (2) complete a normal workday and workweek without an unreasonable number and length of rest periods, (3) complete a normal workday and work week without interruptions from psychologically-based symptoms, (4) perform at a consistent pace without an unreasonable number and length of rest periods, (5) deal with normal work stress and (5) respond appropriately to changes in a routine work setting.
However, Dr. Nunez's opinion was not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Schaffer's recent success in two college courses indicated his ability to "maintain adequate attention and concentration, and [to] function in a work-like setting." Id. Treating physicians' notations of Schaffer's stabilization and organized thoughts also supported the ALJ's determination that his condition failed to meet the severity requirements for disabling schizophrenia. R-171, 196, 211, 214, 236, 342. In consideration of these determinations of stability, combined with the fact that Schaffer was terminated from his last job (which was "going well," R-328) because of a conflict with his supervisor, we find the ALJ was supported by substantial evidence when he rejected Dr. Nunez's conclusions.
The ALJ was also supported by substantial evidence when he rejected the testimony of Schaffer and his father regarding the severity of Schaffer's symptoms. Dr. Cohen explicitly addressed their testimony in determining that Schaffer's impairment was generally mild to moderate. R-74-75. Dr. Cohen opined that Schaffer's father's testimony, asserting that Schaffer needed constant supervision, R-62-72, was contrary to the evidence of his independent activities. R-83. In finding only a mild to moderate impairment, Dr. Cohen cited Schaffer's ability to do chores, his independent and successful enrollment in college courses and his independent work for three months. R-74, 83. Dr. Cohen also determined that Schaffer's illegal drug use may have impacted his motivation, exacerbating his impairment. R-79. During his testimony, Dr. Cohen specifically acknowledged Schaffer's father's testimony, that Schaffer suffered from communication mannerisms, i.e., talking to himself, but determined that they too indicated only a moderate impairment. R-75. In accepting the opinion of Dr. Cohen, the ALJ's findings took into account Schaffer's complaints and his father's testimony, as well as his recent activities. R-18.
Since the ALJ considered all relevant evidence in determining that there existed employment opportunities notwithstanding Schaffer's schizophrenia, his decision was supported by substantial evidence.
ORDER
The motion of Gilbert Schaffer for summary judgment is DENIED.The motion of Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security for summary judgment is GRANTED.
Judgement is ENTERED in favor of Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security and against Gilbert Schaffer.
IT IS SO ORDERED.