Anderson V Ssa

Court Listener

Automated Summary

Key Facts

Plaintiff M.A. filed an application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income on September 22, 2021, which was denied initially and upon reconsideration. M.A. alleges disability from multiple impairments including degenerative disc disease of cervical and lumbar spine, carpal tunnel syndrome, osteoarthritis of both hips, and migraine headaches. Administrative Law Judge Karen Jackson conducted a hearing on July 12, 2023 and found M.A. could perform light work as a Chief Guard. The Court denied M.A.'s Motion for Summary Judgment, determining the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Issues

  • The court evaluated whether the ALJ properly weighed the medical opinions of treating provider Dr. Ginny Gottschalk and consultative examiner Dr. Jonelle DeLawrence, considering the ALJ's determination that these opinions were inconsistent with examination findings and other evidence in the record.
  • The court analyzed whether the ALJ properly considered the combination of M.A.'s impairments including degenerative disc disease, carpal tunnel syndrome, osteoarthritis, and migraine headaches when determining residual functional capacity and disability status.
  • The court examined whether the ALJ properly considered the claimant's subjective complaints regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his impairments, and whether the ALJ reasonably discounted M.A.'s statements as inconsistent with medical evidence.
  • The court must determine whether the ALJ's decision finding M.A. is not disabled is supported by substantial evidence, and whether the court should defer to the ALJ's findings or conduct a de novo review of the administrative decision.

Holdings

The Court denied Plaintiff M.A.'s Motion for Summary Judgment and entered judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security. The Court found that the Administrative Law Judge's decision finding M.A. is not disabled is supported by substantial evidence and must stand. The ALJ properly considered the claimant's medical opinions, subjective complaints, and combination of impairments, concluding the claimant was capable of performing past relevant work as a Chief Guard and was not disabled.

Remedies

The Court denied Plaintiff M.A.'s Motion for Summary Judgment and entered judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's decision that the claimant is not disabled.

Legal Principles

  • Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c, the agency will not defer or give controlling weight to any medical opinion or prior administrative medical finding. The ALJ must articulate consideration of all medical opinions but the new regulations no longer mandate controlling weight analysis. The ALJ's explanation must be sufficiently detailed to enable the claimant to understand why a medical opinion was granted little or partial weight.
  • The court's review of an ALJ's Social Security disability decision is limited to determining whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ's decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla of evidence but less than a preponderance—it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Courts must examine the record as a whole but may not conduct de novo review, resolve conflicts in evidence, or make credibility determinations.
  • In the five-step disability analysis under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, the claimant bears the burden of proving the existence and severity of limitations and that they are precluded from performing past relevant work through step four. At step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to identify significant numbers of jobs in the economy that accommodate the claimant's residual functional capacity and vocational profile.

Precedent Name

  • Jones v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
  • Temples v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
  • Kornecky v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
  • Kyle v. Comm'r Of Soc. Sec.
  • Mullen v. Bowen
  • Ulman v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
  • Shelman v. Heckler
  • Wright v. Massanari
  • Gooch v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs.
  • Cutlip v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs.
  • Hall v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
  • Her v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Cited Statute

  • Code of Federal Regulations
  • Social Security Act

Judge Name

Gregory F. Van Tatenhove

Passage Text

  • Thus, after reviewing the record, the Court finds that the ALJ's decision finding M.A. is not disabled is supported by substantial evidence. Even if the evidence could also support another conclusion, the ALJ's decision must stand because the evidence reasonably supports her conclusion. See Her, 203 F.3d at 389-90; Casey v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 987 F.2d 1230, 1233 (6th Cir. 1993).
  • This Court's review is limited to determining whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ's decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Wright v. Massanari, 321 F.3d 611, 614 (6th Cir. 2003); Shelman v. Heckler, 821 F.2d 316, 319-20 (6th Cir. 1987). "Substantial evidence" is "more than a scintilla of evidence but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."