Mike L. Winn v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
No. 17-1987
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
Submitted: February 15, 2018 Filed: July 6, 2018
Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City
Before LOKEN, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
Mike L. Winn applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits between June 12, 2007, the alleged disability onset date, and December 31, 2012, his “date last insured.” See
On remand, the Commissioner‘s Appeals Council consolidated a second application Winn filed in December 2012 and remanded the combined proceedings to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to consider additional evidence, redetermine Winn‘s RFC, and solicit testimony from a vocational expert (VE). After a hearing at which Winn and a VE testified, a second ALJ denied Winn‘s application for benefits. Winn petitioned for judicial review. After thorough review, the district court1 upheld the Commissioner‘s
Applying the five-step process defined in
to perform light work as defined in
20 CFR 404.1567(b) except that he could lift and/or carry and push and/or pull up to 10 pounds occasionally and 5 pounds frequently; he could stand and walk up to 6 hours in an 8-hour workday and sit up to 6 hours in an 8-hour workday; he could n[ot] climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds; he could occasionally climb ramps and stairs; he could occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl; he could frequently reach, but could only occasionally reach overhead; he could frequently handle, finger and feel; and he needed to avoid hazards such as dangerous moving machinery or unprotected heights.
Based on this RFC, the ALJ found that Winn could not perform his past relevant work, which was operating heavy equipment at a Missouri rock quarry. However, based on the VE‘s testimony that someone with Winn‘s age, education, work experience, and RFC could perform jobs available in the regional and national economy at that time, such as bench assembler, laundry worker, and ticket seller, the ALJ found that Winn was not disabled. On appeal, Winn argues, as he did to the district court, (1) that the ALJ did not give the opinions of his treating physician, Dr. Gary LaMonda, sufficient weight; and (2) that the RFC found by the ALJ attributed greater hand functioning to Winn than the medical evidence supported.
1. The Treating Physician Issue. Dr. LaMonda, an internist, had treated Winn for many years when, in late 2005, Winn‘s complaints of neck and shoulder pain and hand numbness caused Dr. LaMonda to order an MRI of the cervical spine and to refer Winn to Dr. Donald Meyer, a pain management specialist. The MRI showed degenerative disc disease and spinal stenosis. Steroid injections improved Winn‘s pain, but by mid-2007 chronic neck pain led Dr. Meyer to refer Winn to Dr. Jeffrey Parker, a surgeon. Based on an MRI and a new myelogram, Dr. Parker diagnosed severe cervical stenosis and recommended that Winn not return to work. In a second appointment, Dr. Parker diagnosed carpal tunnel syndrome and referred Winn to Dr. John Havey, who performed carpal tunnel release procedures on each hand. Dr. Havey opined that Winn was doing well after the procedures but should remain off work for another month and not do “heavy gripping or lifting.” Later that fall, after another MRI, Dr. Parker performed fusion surgery on Winn‘s cervical spine. Seven weeks after the surgery, Winn told Dr. Parker he was “doing fine” and had “no problems at all.” In January 2008, Winn told Dr. Parker his neck pain was gradually improving but he doubted he could return to work as a heavy-equipment operator. Dr. Parker kept Winn off work and noted he should consider a different profession. Also in January 2008, Dr. Havey noted Winn was doing well after his carpal tunnel surgeries.
The record reflects that Winn received unemployment compensation benefits from the fourth quarter of 2007 through the
Winn next saw Dr. LaMonda in August 2009. Winn said he felt “okay” but reported neck and shoulder pain. Neurodiagnostic testing showed some spinal radiculopathy and severe bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. LaMonda referred Winn to Dr. Thomas Turnbaugh, an orthopedic surgeon, who performed additional carpal tunnel surgery on Winn‘s left wrist in December 2009. At a checkup the next month, Winn told Dr. LaMonda he felt well except for chronic headaches.
In June 2010, Winn saw Dr. LaMonda for “some paper work” regarding his disability application. In response to written interrogatories from Winn‘s attorney, Dr. LaMonda stated that Winn‘s hands are restricted from ten pound lifting and repetitive use; he has shoulder pain while standing for fifteen minutes and cannot sit for more than thirty minutes without having to lie down to stop muscle spasms and arm pain; his “neck will not tolerate sitting for more than 30 minutes“; his cervical stenosis precludes “repetitive stooping or standing for more than 30 minutes“; and lying down every two hours for thirty minutes will relieve pain and muscle spasms. In December 2010, after the first ALJ found Winn not disabled, Dr. LaMonda provided a telephonic sworn statement in which he elaborated on these opinions and
explained his role as internist in coordinating treatment by medical specialists such as Dr. Meyer, Dr. Parker, and Dr. Havey. Dr. LaMonda opined that, while the MRI after Winn‘s neck surgery showed there was no longer nerve blockage, “because it was a long-standing impingement on those nerves, he had had long-standing and permanent damage ... to both the nerves going to the arms, the C5-6 nerve roots, and off the spinal cord.”
Winn saw Dr. LaMonda again in November 2011 and February 2012. The district court agreed with the ALJ that Dr. LaMonda‘s notes are ambiguous as to the effectiveness of Winn‘s most recent carpal tunnel procedure. In February 2013, Winn saw Dr. Dennis Velez for a consultative examination. Dr. Velez observed that Winn demonstrated “normal range of motion” and “full sensation” during a motor examination and concluded he “does not have limitations for sitting, standing or walking.” Dr. Velez opined that Winn “may have some manipulative limitations using the right hand side, but would not have any lifting or carrying limitations.” In May 2014, Winn saw Dr. LaMonda, who reported that Winn continued to have severe carpal tunnel syndrome and chronic pain, despite surgeries.
The ALJ credited Dr. LaMonda‘s opinion that Winn could not lift more than ten pounds but gave limited weight to his other June and December 2010 opinions because they were not supported by objective medical evidence and were inconsistent with the opinions of Winn‘s specialists, with Dr. Velez‘s more recent
The district court concluded that substantial evidence supported the ALJ‘s decision to give Dr. LaMonda‘s opinions less weight than those of the specialists
because the specialists had an equal or greater role in treating Winn‘s ailments, objective medical evidence supported their post-surgery opinions, and Dr. LaMonda saw Winn relatively few times in the years following his back and carpal tunnel surgeries. The court also concluded that Dr. Velez‘s opinion -- Winn may have manipulative limitations on his right hand -- was consistent with the ALJ‘s finding that Winn could “frequently” handle, finger, and feel and did not mandate a limitation that Winn could only “occasionally” do those tasks.
On appeal, Winn argues the ALJ did not accord Dr. LaMonda‘s opinions about Winn‘s functional limitations sufficient weight and failed to reevaluate the evidence in light of Dr. LaMonda‘s December 2010 statement, as the Appeals Council instructed in remanding. Winn emphasizes that Dr. LaMonda treated Winn for over twenty years and coordinated Winn‘s treatment with various specialists. To the extent Dr. LaMonda‘s 2010 opinions were inconsistent with Winn‘s specialists’ opinions in 2007 and 2008, Winn notes the specialists saw Winn far fewer times than Dr. LaMonda and argues that their opinions, even if valid when given, “cannot be dispositive of [Winn‘s] condition years later.”
A treating physician‘s opinion will be given controlling weight “if, and only if, it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.‘” Johnson v. Astrue, 628 F.3d 991, 994 (8th Cir. 2011); see
In early to mid-2008, based on test results, Dr. Havey noted the post-surgery carpal tunnel condition would not preclude Winn‘s return to work; Dr. Parker opined that Winn could engage in light work; Dr. Kitchens opined that Winn could “work with light to medium-duty restrictions“; and Dr. Meyer opined that Winn‘s pain “is not something that should be completely disabling.” There was then a long gap in treatment until late 2009, when Winn reported pain and underwent another carpal tunnel surgical procedure. In January 2010, Winn told Dr. LaMonda he was experiencing no symptoms other than chronic headaches.
The next medical evidence is the opinions set forth in Dr. LaMonda‘s June 2010 interrogatory answers. In his December 2010 explanatory statement, Dr. LaMonda opined that, even if the post-surgery MRIs showed physical improvement, the surgeries failed because Winn‘s permanent
2. The Hand Functioning Issue. Winn argues the RFC finding that he could “frequently handle, finger and feel” failed to reflect Dr. Velez‘s opinion, which the ALJ credited, that Winn may have manipulative limitations on his right hand. When used in an RFC, the limitation “frequently” means that the activity or condition occurs between one-third and two-thirds of an eight-hour workday. See SSA Program Operations Manual System, DI 25001.001. Winn argues the ALJ should have found that he could only “occasionally” handle, finger, and feel, which means the activity occurs no more than one-third of the workday. Id. The VE testified that, if the “occasionally” limitation applied, Winn could not perform the available jobs she identified but would be able to perform another unskilled light job, counter clerk.
The district court rejected Winn‘s contention because the VE identified another job Winn could perform if limited to occasional handling, fingering, and feeling, and because “[n]othing compels the conclusion that the limitation to frequent handling, fingering and feeling (which is less than constant) is not sufficient to encompass Dr. Velez‘s opinion.” We agree. As Winn has never sought unskilled light work, there is nothing in the record suggesting that his impairments require that he be limited to occasional rather than frequent handling. Winn argues that Dr. LaMonda‘s discounted opinion made “very clear that [Winn] would have significant problems with his hands.” But Dr. LaMonda opined that Winn could not perform jobs that require occasional as well as frequent handling and fingering. The ALJ was not required to accept any physician‘s opinion regarding this element of Winn‘s RFC. “Even though the RFC assessment draws from medical sources for support, it is ultimately an administrative determination reserved to the Commissioner.” Cox v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 614, 619-20 (8th Cir. 2007); see
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
LOKEN
CIRCUIT JUDGE