Johnson v. Barnhart

• Decision Date: 12 December 2005
• Docket Number: No. 04-1963.,04-1963.
• Parties: Pamela D. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Page 650

434 F.3d 650

Pamela D. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-1963.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued October 26, 2005.

Decided December 12, 2005.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

ARGUED: Jason Eskwith Huber, Forman & Huber, L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Craig Ormson, Assistant Regional, Social Security Administration, Office of the General, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Roger D. Forman, Forman & Huber, L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Donna L. Calvert, Regional Chief, Region III, Social Security Administration, Office of the General, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Kelly R. Curry, Assistant United States Attorney, Office Of The United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Pamela Johnson challenges the district court's decision affirming the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's denial of her disability insurance benefits (DIB) claim. Johnson's alleged disabilities include chronic pain, depression, and impairments in her hands. After a hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that Johnson was not disabled. Johnson appealed the ALJ's decision to the Appeals Council, which denied her petition for review. Johnson then initiated this suit in federal court, seeking review of the administrative decision. After considering cross-motions for summary judgment, the magistrate judge recommended granting the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment and denying Johnson's motion for summary judgment. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and Johnson now appeals. For the following reasons, we affirm.

I.

"This Court is authorized to review the Commissioner's denial of benefits under 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g)...." Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 176 (4th Cir.2001). "`Under the Social Security Act, [a reviewing court] must uphold the factual findings of the [ALJ] if they are supported by substantial evidence and were reached through application of the correct legal standard.'" Id. (quoting Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir.1996)). "Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Craig, 76 F.3d at 589 (internal quotation marks omitted). "In reviewing for substantial evidence, we do not undertake to reweigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute our judgment for that of the [ALJ]." Id. "Where conflicting evidence allows reasonable minds to differ as to whether a claimant is disabled, the responsibility for that decision falls on the [ALJ]." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). With this framework in mind, we turn to Johnson's argument that the record lacks substantial evidence to support the ALJ's finding that she is not disabled. See Craig, 76 F.3d at 589 (noting that the decision before the court is not whether the claimant is disabled, but whether the ALJ's finding of no disability is supported by substantial evidence).

II.

"Disability" is the "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." 42 U.S.C.A. § 423(d)(1)(A)(West Supp.2005). The "[d]etermination of eligibility for social security benefits involves a five-step inquiry."¹ Walls v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 287, 290 (4th Cir.2002). The ALJ decided Johnson's case at the fifth step, which requires the Commissioner to prove that the claimant, despite her impairments, can perform a "significant number of jobs in the national economy." Id. Although the ALJ found that Johnson's impairments were "severe" as described in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b) and that she could not perform her past relevant work, the ALJ concluded that she had the residual functional capacity to perform "a significant range of light work."² (Supp. J.A. 23-24.) Specifically, while finding that Johnson's impairments cause her chronic mild to moderate pain, slightly restrict her fine and gross manipulation, slightly limit her ability to handle stress, and moderately limit her ability to maintain concentration, the ALJ also determined that Johnson can be attentive and carry out assigned work instructions and can "occasionally perform postural activities such as climbing." (Supp. J.A. 24.) The ALJ also found that the objective medical evidence did not support Johnson's subjective complaints of pain.³ Acknowledging these limitations, the ALJ accepted the vocational expert's testimony that suitable "light work" as a cashier, office clerk, or small products assembler existed for Johnson.⁴

As grounds for reversal, Johnson contends that the record does not support the ALJ's decision because: (1) the ALJ did not afford proper weight to the observations of Dr. Cavender, Johnson's primary treating physician; (2) the ALJ improperly accorded too much weight to the opinion of Dr. Starr, the independent medical expert; (3) the ALJ improperly rejected the psychological evaluation of John Atkinson; (4) the ALJ incorrectly determined that Johnson's testimony was not credible; and (5) the ALJ posed inaccurate hypothetical questions to Lisa Goudy, the vocational expert. We address these arguments in turn.

A.

We begin by reviewing the ALJ's consideration of the opinion of Dr. Cavender, Johnson's principal treating physician. Dr. Cavender completed a general physical exam of Johnson and submitted her treatment notes, both of which conflicted with a "Physical Capacities Questionnaire and Assessment" later completed by Dr. Cavender.

Courts evaluate and weigh medical opinions pursuant to the following nonexclusive list: (1) whether the physician has examined the applicant, (2) the treatment relationship between the physician and the applicant, (3) the supportability of the physician's opinion, (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record, and (5) whether the physician is a specialist. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (2005). Courts often accord "greater weight to the testimony of a treating physician" because the treating physician has necessarily examined the applicant and has a treatment relationship with the applicant.⁵ Mastro, 270 F.3d at 178.

After a general physical examination of Johnson on September 1, 2000, Dr. Cavender diagnosed her with a lumbar strain, chronic pain, degenerative disc disease, and a right shoulder strain. Dr. Cavender also stated that Johnson could perform light work, including lifting ten pounds regularly, that Johnson should avoid excessive lifting and bending, and that Johnson would be a good candidate for vocational rehabilitation. Dr. Cavender's treatment notes reveal that to alleviate Johnson's pain she. prescribed Oxycontin and that she also prescribed her Zoloft. The treatment notes, however, do not indicate why Dr. Cavender prescribed Zoloft, and Johnson never complained to any other physician that she suffered from depression.⁶ The treatment notes also indicate that Dr. Cavender diagnosed Johnson with sciatica and possible fibromyalgia.⁷ Dr. Cavender's 2000-2001 evaluation thus supports the ALJ's conclusion that Johnson suffers from chronic mild to moderate pain but maintains the ability to perform light work.

Six days after Johnson's hearing before the ALJ, on March 26, 2002, Johnson submitted a "Physical Capacities Questionnaire and Assessment" completed by Dr. Cavender. (Supp. J.A. 432.) The ALJ accepted this assessment into evidence, but later discredited it after finding it unreliable because it was not supported by clinical evidence and because it inexplicably conflicted with Dr. Cavender's 2000-2001 evaluation and other medical opinions. See Craig, 76 F.3d at 590 (upholding ALJ's rejection of treating physician's opinion because the record contained persuasive contradictory evidence and the treating physician's own notes contradicted his opinion). We need not determine whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ's rejection of the assessment because the March 2002 assessment is not relevant to our inquiry.⁸ To qualify for DIB, Johnson must prove that she became disabled prior to the expiration of her insured status. 42 U.S.C.A. § 423(a)(1)(A), (c)(1)(B); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.101(a), 404.131(a)(2005); see also Henley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 58 F.3d 210, 213 (6th Cir.1995)(upholding denial of disability insurance benefits where claimant failed to prove disability prior to loss of insured status); Flaten v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1458 (9th Cir.1995)(holding that "individuals who apply for benefits under the Act after the expiration of their insured status, for a disability that prevents substantial gainful activity at the time of the application, must show that the current disability has existed continuously since some time on or before the date that their insured status lapsed"); Flint v. Sullivan, 951 F.2d 264, 267 (10th Cir.1991)(up-holding denial of DIB where claimant alleged onset of disability three years after the date last insured). The March 26, 2002 assessment was submitted almost nine months after Johnson's last insured date of June 30, 2001. Johnson has made no argument that the disabilities contained in the assessment existed continuously from June 30, 2001 to the present, and there is no objective medical evidence that the impairments observed by Dr. Cavender in 2002 existed prior to June 30, 2001. Therefore, we find no merit to Johnson's argument that the ALJ failed to give proper weight to Dr. Cavender's 2002 assessments.

B.

Johnson next contends that the ALJ's denial of disability benefits is not supported by substantial evidence because...