1:05-cv-00310 | W.D. Pa. | Mar 6, 2007
Case 1:05-cV-00310-I\/|BC Document 13 Filed 03/06/07 Page 1 of 10
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C()URT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHRISTOPHER G. TOTLEBEN,
Plaintiff,
JO ANNE B. BARNHART,
Commissioner of Social Security,
)
)
l
v. ) CA 05-310Erie
)
)
)
)
Defendant. )
OPINION
COHILL, D.J.
Christopher G. Totleben (“Claimant”) here appeals the Commissioner’s denial of his
claim for disability benefits (“DIB”) and supplemental security income (“SSI”) under Titles ll
and XVI ofthe Social Security Act (the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§401-433, 1381-1383f.
Specifically, Totleben appeals the determination that he is not disabled because, even with his
non-exertional limitations, he can perform work that exists in significant numbers in the
national economy. Before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment filed by the
parties to this appeal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. We have jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. §
405(g).
Having considered the arguments of the parties, the administrative record, and the
applicable law, for the reasons set forth below we will grant summary judgment in favor of
the Commissioner and against the Claimant.
I. Background
Christopher Totleben was forty-nine years old at the time of the hearing. He is a high
school graduate, and has previous work experience as an auto body painter and industrial
painter. (Tr. 16). ln April of 2003 he suffered a stroke, but has since regained full use of his
body. (Tr. 241). Af`ter the stroke, Totleben began having the seizures, headaches, and
depression, which are the basis for his disability claim.
Totleben filed an application for SSI on October 2, 2003, and an application for DIB on
Case 1:05-cV-00310-I\/|BC Document 13 Filed 03/06/07 Page 2 of 10
October l4, 2003, alleging disability as of August 15, 2001 due to a history of stroke and
seizures, (Tr. 54-57, 227-28). At the administrative hearing, this onset date was amended to
September 20, 2003. (Tr. 15). These claims were denied on December l6, 2003. (Tr. 36~37).
Totleben’s claims were heard by Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Michael F.
Colligan on February 3, 2005. (Tr. 234-252). Claimant was represented by counsel and
testified at the administrative hearing. He stated that he had a stroke in April of 2001, but has
regained full use of his body since then. (Tr. 241). He takes medication for his seizures, and
testified that “I believe it’s fairly under control.” (Tr. 240). He has been seizure free for the
past four years. (Tr. 240). He explained that he is honest about his health problems when he
applies for jobs, and that employers never call him back because he has a seizure disorder. ‘ (Tr.
241).
He is on nine medications, and usually goes to sleep about three times a day. (Tr. 245).
He also has headaches “[a] couple of times a week” which last for twenty or thirty minutes.
(Tr. 246). He sees a doctor for depression, (Tr. 246-47). He doesn’t get along with people
very well, and likes to work by himself. (Tr. 247-48).
Medical Records
Claimant’s primary care physician is Merja Wright, M.D. (Tr. 145-157; 174-204; 223).
She began treating Totleben after his stroke. She referred him to neurologist Laura
Hershkowitz, D.O. (Tr. 127-137; 205-222). Medical records from May 2003 show that
Claimant’s seizures were under control through medication. (Tr. 129). The effects of his
stroke were “mostly resolved” by July 14, 2003. (Tr. 192). EEG tests performed in July 2002
and in July 2003 were “normal,” and a CT scan performed in July 2003 showed no new infarct,
mass, midline shift, or intracerebral hemorrhage of the brain. (Tr. l 10, 124, 234-35).
On August 20, 2003, Claimant complained to Dr. Wright of headaches and
Such conduct on the part of a prospective employer does not establish that a Claimant is
disabled under the regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1566(0), 404.966(0).
2
Case 1:05-cV-00310-I\/|BC Document 13 Filed 03/06/07 Page 3 of 10
disorientation, and reported having had a Seizure in late July. (Tr. l86-88). Dr. Hershkowitz
examined him on September 24, 2003, and noted that he had had seizures in July and August.
(Tr. 2l0). She reported that he was alert, interactive, and Stable, with mild left hemispheric
deficits, and made Some adjustments in his medication (Tr. 210).
On October 10, 2003, Sukh D. Sharma, M.D., examined the Claimant for cardiac
problems after he complained of chest pains. (Tr. l39-40). Dr. Sharma noted that Totleben’S
jugular venous pressure was normal; his carotids were free of bruits; his heart had no murrnur,
gallops, or rubs; his breathing was free of wheezes and rales; and he had no edema. (Tr. l40).
His EKG was normal, and he achieved 13 METS during his stress test, indicating that there was
no limitation on his physical activity. Guides to the Evalualion of Permanent Impairmenls,
170-71 (American Medical Assoc. 4"‘ Ed. 1995).
On October 29, 2003, Dr. Wright noted that the Claimant had not had “any seizure type
activity at all” and was feeling “okay” with his medications. (Tr. 146). After another
examination on December 3, 2003, Dr. Wright recorded that Totleben was feeling “reasonably
well” on his medications (Tr. 183). He was having headaches, but the examination was
normal. (Tr. l83).
A state agency physician, K. Loc Le, M.D., reviewed Claimant’s records on December
9, 2003, and stated that Totleben could perform light work. (Tr. 158-65).
Claimant sought treatment for depression at Stairways Behavioral Health Outpatient
Clinic in January 2004. Sean Su, M.D. is Claimant’s treating psychiatrist at Stairways. A
psychiatric evaluation performed on February 3, 2004, shows that Totleben reported feeling
severely depressed and questioned whether he had “anything to live for” but denied having any
suicidal ideation. (Tr. l69-7l). He stated that his depression and mental health problems
occurred after his stroke. (Tr, l69). Dr. Su reported that Claimant’s mental status was awake
and alert, and that he was oriented to person, place, and time. His speech was coherent and
goal-directed. His long-term and short-term memory were generally intact. He appeared to
Case 1:05-cv-00310-|\/|BC Document 13 Filed 03/06/07 Page 4 of 10
have average intelligence, and his insight and judgment were generally fair. (Tr. 170). Dr. Su’s
diagnosis was major depressive disorder and seizure disorder. His global assessment function
(“GAF”) was 45-50. 2 (Tr. l7l). Dr. Su prescribed Lexapro for depression, and recommended
continued outpatient psychiatric treatment. (Tr. l7l).
Dr. Wright noted in March 2004 that the Claimant was feeling drowsy, although an
examination revealed no abnormalities and she found that Totleben was “more animated” than
usual. (Tr. 180). On l\/larch 24, 2004, Dr. Hershkowitz reported that Totleben’s headaches
were “better” and that there had been no seizure activity since medications were adjusted in
September. (Tr. 209). Totleben reported that he was sleeping during the day, but not sleeping
at night. (Tr. 209). Claimant was alert, oriented, and interactive; he had clear speech, 5/5
motor strength, and a stable gait; he had mild processing problems (Tr. 209).
Lexapro was discontinued because it made the Claimant sleepy, and Dr. Su prescribed
Effexor in April. (Tr. 167-68). On April 28, 2004, Dr. Wright noted that Claimant’s mood
had improved, and that he was not experiencing problems with his medications (Tr. 179), On
l\/lay l l, 2004, Dr. Su reported that he was “doing better” aside from some complaints of
drowsiness. (Tr. 166). His mood was more stable.
On June l6, 2004, Dr. Wright examined the Claimant and noted no abnormalities He
was feeling “abandoned” because the community health net neurology clinic where he saw Dr.
Hershkowitz had closed, and he was unable to get in touch with her. However, he was still
getting his medications, and was not having any seizure-like symptoms (Tr. 178).
On August 10, 2004, Dr. Su prepared a mental abilities form, which indicated that the
Claimant was able to remember work instructions; could understand, remember, and carry out
simple instructions; and could ask simple questions (Tr. l73). However, in Dr. Su’s opinion
2
A GAF in the 41-50 range indicates serious problems (e.g., suicidal ideation, severe
obsessional rituals, frequent shoplifting) OR any serious impairment in social, occupational, or
school functioning (e.g., no friends, unable to keep a job). Diagnostic and Statz`stz'cal Manual of
Mental Disorders 34 (4"‘ ed., text revision, 2000).
4
Case 1:05-cv-00310-|\/|BC Document 13 Filed 03/06/07 Page 5 of 10
Totleben would be unable to maintain attention for extended periods, maintain regular
attendance, make simple decisions, or complete a normal workday without an unreasonable
number and length of rest periods He would have difficulty responding appropriately to
supervisory criticism, and getting along with co-workers. (Tr. l73).
Dr. Hershkowitz again examined the Claimant on November 17, 2004, (Tr. 205-207).
Totleben complained of headaches but had stopped taking the medications for them. (Tr. 205).
He was having problems with his memory, and reported that he had had a seizure the previous
month. However, the physical examination revealed no abnormalities, and a neurological
motor examination showed symmetrical, 5/5 motor strength with normal bulk and tone, intact
senses, 2/4 reflexes in the upper extremities and 3/4 in the knees, and a stable gait. (Tr. 206).
Dr. Hershkowitz increased his seizure medication and increased the Effexor for his headaches
(Tr. 206).
By letter to Claimant’s counsel dated December 7, 2004, Dr. Wright stated that
Totleben was adequately medicated and therefore his seizures were reduced, but that he
complained of tiredness and headaches from the medication (Tr. 223).
The ALJ’s Decision
A vocational expert testified that considering Claimant’s age, educational background,
work experience, and residual functional capacity, he would make a successful adjustment to
work as a surveillance systems monitor, unarmed guard, and document preparer. (Tr. 249-252).
The ALJ left the record open for thirty days for further medical information. (Tr. 252).
By decision dated February 3, 2006, Totleben’s claims were denied. (Tr. 15-27). The
ALJ concluded that Totleben had severe impairments which do not meet or equal the criteria of
listed medical impairments (R. 26 findings 3, 4). The ALJ found that Claimant’s testimony
regarding his limitations was not fully credible. (Tr. 26 finding 5). The ALJ concluded that
Totleben has no exertional limitations, but that his seizure disorder requires precautions such as
avoiding heights and moving machinery, and avoiding climbing ladders, ropes, and scaffolds
Case 1:05-cv-00310-|\/|BC Document 13 Filed 03/06/07 Page 6 of 10
He also has non-exertional restrictions due to residuals of his stroke, seizures, and depression,
which limit him to simple routine repetitive tasks and minimal contact with the public. (Tr. 26-
27, finding 6). Therefore, the ALJ concluded that the Claimant was not disabled within the
meaning of the Act. (Tr. 27 finding 11).
The Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ’s decision, and this civil action
followed.
II. Standard of Review
The standard of review used by this Court in reviewing the decision of the
Commissioner in social security cases is whether substantial evidence exists in the record to
support the decision, Allen v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 37" date_filed="1989-07-25" court="3rd Cir." case_name="ALLEN, William H., Appellant, v. BOWEN, Otis, R., Secretary of Health and Human Services">881 F.2d 37, 39 (3d Cir. 1989). Judicial scope of review
of a social security case is based upon the pleadings and transcript of the record. 42 U.S.C. §
405(g). We review the Commissioner’s decision only to determine whether she applied the
correct legal standards and whether the record, as a whole, contains substantial evidence to
support the Commissioner’s findings of fact. Schaudeck v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admn.,
181 F.3d 429" date_filed="1999-06-25" court="3rd Cir." case_name="Lisa Schaudeck v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration">181 F.3d 429, 431 (3d Cir. 1999). The Commissioner’s findings of fact, if supported by
substantial evidence, are conclusive. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422" date_filed="1999-08-05" court="3rd Cir." case_name="Evelyn Plummer v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security">186 F.3d 422, 427
(3d Cir. 1999); Dobrowolsky v. Califano, 606 F.2d 403" date_filed="1979-10-03" court="3rd Cir." case_name="George Dobrowolsky v. Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Secretary, Health, Education, and Welfare">606 F.2d 403, 406 (3d Cir. 1979). We may not
undertake a de novo review of the decision, and may not reweigh the evidence of record.
Monsour Medical Ctr. v. Heckler, 806 F.2d 1185" date_filed="1987-01-06" court="3rd Cir." case_name="16 Soc.Sec.Rep.Ser. 17 v. Margaret Heckler">806 F.2d 1185, 1190 (3d Cir. 1986).
“Substantial evidence ‘does not mean a large or considerable amount of evidence, but
rather such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.”’ Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358" date_filed="1999-05-18" court="3rd Cir." case_name="Wayne R. Hartranft v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner Social Security Administration">181 F.3d 358, 360 (3d Cir. 1999) (quoting Pierce v.
Underwood, 487 U.S. 552" date_filed="1988-06-27" court="SCOTUS" case_name="Pierce v. Underwood">487 U.S. 552 (1988)). Substantial evidence has been defined as more than a mere
scintilla. Plumer, 186 F.3d 422" date_filed="1999-08-05" court="3rd Cir." case_name="Evelyn Plummer v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security">186 F.3d at 427; Hess v. Secretary, 497 F.2d 837" date_filed="1974-06-05" court="3rd Cir." case_name="James Hess, Jr. v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, United States of America">497 F.2d 837, 838 (3d Cir. 1974).
Evidence is not substantial if the Commissioner fails to resolve conflicts created by
countervailing evidence, particularly that of treating physicians, or if it is not evidence but mere
Case 1:05-cv-00310-|\/|BC Document 13 Filed 03/06/07 Page 7 of 10
conclusion. Kent v. Schweiker, 710 F.2d 110" date_filed="1983-06-22" court="3rd Cir." case_name="Deborah Kent v. Richard S. Schweiker, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services">710 F.2d 110, 114 (3d Cir. 1983). The Commissioner may
accept or reject testimony or other evidence, but is not free to mischaracterize the evidence or to
reject it for no reason or for the wrong reason. Mason v. Shalala, 994 F.2d 1058" date_filed="1993-06-01" court="3rd Cir." case_name="Harold MASON, Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health & Human Services, Appellee">994 F.2d 1058, 1067 (3d Cir.
1993).
To be eligible for social security disability benefits a plaintiff must demonstrate an
inability to engage in substantial gainful activity because of a medically-determinable physical
or mental impairment that can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be
expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A);
Brewster v. Heckler, 786 F.2d 581" date_filed="1986-03-26" court="3rd Cir." case_name="Wilson BREWSTER, Appellant, v. Margaret HECKLER, Secretary of Health & Human Services, Appellee">786 F.2d 581, 583 (3d Cir. 1986).
To facilitate the disability deterrnination, the Commissioner has set forth a five-step
sequential analysis for an ALJ to use when evaluating the disabled status of a claimant. 20
C.F.R. § 404.1520(a); Jones v. Sullz`van, 954 F.2d 125" date_filed="1991-12-16" court="3rd Cir." case_name="James H. JONES, Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, Secretary of Health and Human Services">954 F.2d 125, 129 (3d Cir. 1991). The ALJ must
determine (l) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if
not, whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) if the claimant has a severe impairment,
whether it meets or equals the criteria listed in 20 C.F.R., pt. 404, subpt. P., app. l; (4) if the
impairment does not satisfy one of the impairment listings, whether the claimant's impairments
prevent the performance of past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant is incapable of
performing past relevant work, whether he can perform any other work that exists in the
national economy, in light of his age, education, work experience, and residual functional
capacity (“RFC”). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.
The claimant carries the initial burden of demonstrating by medical evidence that she is
unable to return to his previous employment Dobrowolsky, 606 F.2d 403" date_filed="1979-10-03" court="3rd Cir." case_name="George Dobrowolsky v. Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Secretary, Health, Education, and Welfare">606 F.2d at 406. Once this burden
is met, the burden of proof shifts to the Commissioner to show that the claimant can engage in
alternative substantial gainful activity. Id.
We have carefully reviewed the entire record and will not reweigh the evidence of
record. Monsour Medical Ctr. v. Heckler, 806 F.2d 1185" date_filed="1987-01-06" court="3rd Cir." case_name="16 Soc.Sec.Rep.Ser. 17 v. Margaret Heckler">806 F.2d 1185, 1190 (3d Cir. 1986).
Case 1:05-cv-00310-|\/|BC Document 13 Filed 03/06/07 Page 8 of 10
III. Analysis
Applying this five-part framework to the Claimant’s case, the ALJ found that the
Claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity during the relevant period. ( Tr. 26).
The residuals from the cerebrovascular accident and seizure disorder, and his depressive
disorder, are severe impairments that do not meet or medically equal one of the listed
impairments in appendix l, Subpart P, Regulation No. 4. ( Tr. 26). He is unable to perform his
past relevant work. (Tr. 27). However, he is able to make a vocational adjustment to work as
surveillance systems monitor, unarmed guard, and document preparer. (Tr. 27). Accordingly,
the ALJ found that Totleben was not disabled. (Tr. 27).
The Claimant argues that the ALJ improperly assessed evidence relating to Claimant’s
headaches, fatigue, seizures, episodes of disorientation, and depression We have reviewed the
record in this case and conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s decision.
The records of both treating physicians since September 2003 indicate that Totleben
complained about headaches and fatigue, and that his neurologist tried different medications
and dosages to treat the headaches and tiredness (or, in the case of Elavil, wakefulness) that
resulted from his anti-seizure medications Treatment notes support the ALJ’s conclusion that
although the Claimant was having headaches, he was not experiencing them as frequently as he
claimed at the hearing.
The record also establishes that his seizures were well controlled by medication.
Indeed, the Claimant himself testified that he had not had seizures for the four years he had
been taking his current medication. And, although Totleben remains depressed, the record
shows that medication has stabilized this condition, as well.
The Claimant argues that the ALJ ignored Dr. Su’s August 2004 assessment of his
“l\/Iental Abilities and Aptitudes Needed to Do Unskilled Work,” in which the doctor indicated
that Totleben would be unable to maintain attention for extended periods, maintain regular
attendance at work, make simple decisions, or complete a normal workday without
Case 1:05-cv-00310-|\/|BC Document 13 Filed 03/06/07 Page 9 of 10
unreasonable rest periods; and that he Would have difficulty with supervisory criticism
and getting along with his co-Workers. However, the ALJ did consider this assessment, and
explained that he was giving it little weight because it was merely a check-box form report
devoid of any explanation or rationale for its conclusions An ALJ may give such form reports
little or no weight. Mason v. Shalala, 994 F.2d 1058, 1065 (3d Cir. 1993). Moreover, the ALJ
noted that the report was not supported by Dr. Su’s psychiatric evaluation or progress notes A
treating physician’s report may be discounted where it is inconsistent with other medical
evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(2).
The ALJ also considered, and discounted, Dr. Su’s initial conclusion that Totleben had a
GAF of 45-50. The ALJ explained that the GAF is a subjective assessment, and noted that at
the same initial examination the Claimant denied having any suicidal ideation, was alert and
oriented to person, time and place, denied having any hallucinations and exhibited no
significant obsessions or compulsions At his next appointment with Dr. Su, on May ll, 2004,
the Claimant again denied any suicidal or homicidal ideation. He was doing well on the
medication and his mood was more stable. We find that the ALJ properly considered the GAF
score in the context of Dr. Su’s entire initial examination and the subsequent medical record,
and his decision to discount it is supported by substantial evidence.
The ALJ accounted for Totleben’s non-exertional limitations, including mild perception
and memory problems occasional headaches depression, and fatigue secondary to his multiple
medications, when he found that the Claimant would have “moderate” difficulty in maintaining
sustained concentration, persistence, and pace. Accordingly, he limited Totleben to simple,
routine, repetitive tasks and to minimal contact with others
The Claimant further asserts that the ALJ improperly concluded that Totleben’s
testimony that his symptoms were debilitating was not fully credible. Our review of an ALJ’s
credibility determinations is deferential, because the ALJ is in the best position to assess the
Claimant’s testimony. In this case, Totleben testified that he had regained full use of his body
Case 1:05-cv-00310-|\/|BC Document 13 Filed 03/06/07 Page 10 of 10
after the stroke, and that he had not had a seizure since starting his new medication four years
previously. Progress notes from Dr. Wright and Dr. Hershkowitz during the relevant time
period indicate that his headaches and fatigue are related to his medications which his
physicians continue to adjust, and do not support a conclusion that he is disabled. We find that
the ALJ properly concluded that the record did not support Totleben’s testimony that his
headaches and fatigue were debilitating.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, we find that the ALJ properly weighed the evidence of
record, and his determination that the Claimant is not disabled within the meaning of the Act is
supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we will grant summary judgment in favor of
the Commissioner and against the Claimant. An appropriate Order follows
Ba%gét f 1091 ZéfaM-u¢. é ga w ¢\`Q
Maurice B. Cohill, Jr.
Senior United States District Court Judge
10