Warner v. Commissioner of Social Sec.

Decision Date08 July 2004
Docket NumberNo. 03-1641.,03-1641.
PartiesGary WARNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Kerry Spencer Johnson (briefed), Weisberg & Walkon, Southfield, MI, for Appellant.

Robert W. Haviland, Asst. U.S. Atty., Flint, MI, David Skidmore (briefed), Social Security Administration, Chicago, IL, for Appellee.

Before MARTIN and SUTTON, Circuit Judges; QUIST, District Judge.*

OPINION

BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge.

Gary Warner appeals the district court's judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of social security benefits. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

I.

Warner, who has a twelfth-grade education and has earned a high school equivalency diploma, worked as a production worker for Robinson Industries. In that capacity, Warner carved plastic parts and was required regularly to lift between five and seventy-five pounds. On April 30, 1999, Warner applied for disability insurance benefits under Title II and XVI of the Social Security Act, claiming that he became disabled as of February 12, 1998, as a result of carpal tunnel syndrome.

Applying the sequential review process, the administrative law judge found that although Warner had a severe impairment, he was not disabled because he retained the ability to perform past relevant work as a retail sales clerk. Notably, the administrative law judge significantly discounted the medical opinion of Warner's treating physician, Dr. Craig R. Sonke, who had diagnosed Warner with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome in 1995. Dr. Sonke noted that Warner could lift up to five pounds regularly, could sit up to four hours at a time, could stand or walk up to two hours per day in an eight-hour day and that Warner's overall endurance was affected by his chronic pain such that he would need two hours rest per eight-hour work day. Dr. Sonke concluded that Warner "is not capable of working an 8 hour day, 5 days a week for any type of job secondary to his chronic pain." The administrative law judge found, however, that the other medical evidence and Warner's own testimony did not support Dr. Sonke's determination that Warner's carpal tunnel syndrome affected his walking and standing ability. The administrative law judge also rejected Dr. Sonke's finding that Warner could lift only up to five pounds on a regular basis.

Moreover, the administrative law judge found Warner's testimony regarding his alleged chronic pain only partially credible. The administrative law judge then posed a hypothetical situation to the vocational expert to determine whether Warner retained the residual functional capacity to perform his past relevant work or other work existing in significant numbers in the economy. The administrative law judge listed the following constraints in the first hypothetical: inability to repeatedly grip or grasp with hands; ability to lift up to twenty pounds occasionally and up to ten pounds frequently; ability to stand, walk, or sit up to six hours in an eight-hour workday. These constraints were consistent with the conclusions of the state disability determination evaluator who completed Warner's residual functional capacity assessment, Dr. John R. Bartone. Considering these constraints, the vocational expert testified that Warner could perform his past relevant work in retail sales.

The administrative law judge then asked another hypothetical question reducing the amount of weight that Warner could lift or carry to ten pounds occasionally and five pounds frequently. The vocational expert testified that with those restrictions there existed thousands of jobs that Warner could perform. The vocational expert testified, however, that if the agency fully credited Warner's assessment of his pain symptoms, then Warner would be unable to perform any of the thousands of jobs mentioned. Based on the credibility determinations and this testimony, the administrative law judge concluded that Warner was not disabled because he retained the residual functional capacity to perform past relevant work in retail sales. Warner appealed to the Appeals Council, which denied review, making the administrative law judge's denial of disability insurance benefits the final decision of the Social Security Administration.

Thereafter, Warner sought review of the Administration's decision in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The magistrate issued a report recommending the reversal of the denial of disability insurance benefits. The magistrate found that the Administration erred in finding Warner only partially credible because there was evidence in the record indicating that Warner took medication prescribed to alleviate pain symptoms. Crediting the objections of the Administration, the district court concluded otherwise and held that substantial evidence supported the Administration's denial of disability benefits. This timely appeal followed.

II.

"This Court must affirm the Commissioner's conclusions absent a determination that the Commissioner has failed to apply the correct legal standards or has made findings of fact unsupported by substantial evidence in the record." Walters v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 528 (6th Cir.1997). Substantial evidence exists when a "reasonable mind might accept" the relevant evidence "as adequate to support a conclusion." Kirk v. Sec. of Health & Human Servs., 667 F.2d 524, 535 (6th Cir.1981) (internal quotation marks omitted). As long as substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's decision, we must defer to it, "`even if there is substantial evidence in the record that would have supported an opposite conclusion. ...'" Wright v. Massanari, 321 F.3d 611, 614 (6th Cir.2003) (quoting Key v. Callahan, 109 F.3d 270, 273 (6th Cir. 1997)).

Administrative law judges employ a five-step sequential inquiry to determine whether a claimant is disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Jones v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 336 F.3d 469, 474 (6th Cir.2003). The claimant bears the burden of proof through the first four steps of the inquiry, at which point the burden shifts to the Commissioner to "identify a significant number of jobs in the economy that accommodate the claimant's residual functional capacity...." Id. In this case, the administrative law judge determined at step four of the inquiry that Warner was not disabled within the meaning of the act because he could perform his past relevant work in retail sales despite his impairment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) (describing step four of the sequential review process). Thus, our review is limited to determining whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's decision that Warner could perform his past relevant work as a retail sales clerk. See Walters, 127 F.3d at 529.

A.

Warner argues that the administrative law judge erred in failing to defer wholly to the opinions of his treating physician, Dr. Sonke. Generally, the opinions of treating physicians are given substantial, if not controlling, deference. See King v. Heckler, 742 F.2d 968, 973 (6th Cir.1984); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Treating physicians' opinions are only given such deference when supported by objective medical evidence. Jones, 336 F.3d at 477. "The determination of disability is [ultimately] the prerogative of the [Commissioner], not the treating physician." Harris v. Heckler, 756 F.2d 431, 435 (6th Cir.1985).

In this case, the administrative law judge essentially disregarded two conclusions of Dr. Sonke — his conclusion regarding the amount of weight that Warner could lift regularly and his conclusion regarding Warner's walking and standing limitations. We conclude that it was proper for the administrative law judge to disregard these conclusions.

First, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's decision to disregard the conclusion of Dr. Sonke regarding the limits on the amount of weight that Warner could lift regularly. As the magistrate noted, Dr. Sonke's conclusion regarding the amount of weight that Warner could lift regularly appears to be based not upon his own medical conclusion, but upon the conclusion of a different doctor, as well as Warner's own assessment of his weight-lifting limitations. Moreover, that Warner could lift...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2075 cases
  • Doyle v. Carolyn W. Colvin Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • July 28, 2014
    ...evidence in the record.'" Longworth v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 402 F.3d 591, 595 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Warner v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 375 F.3d 387, 390 (6th Cir. 2004)). See also Walters v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 528 (6th Cir. 1997). The court's review of the decision for substa......
  • Journell v. Astrue
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • May 8, 2012
    ...opinions are accorded "substantial, if not controlling deference." Vance v. SSA, 260 F. App'x 801, 804 (6th Cir. 2008), Warner v. SSA, 375 F.3d 387, 390 (6th Cir. 2004). The most emphatic application of this rule is that, where a treating physician's opinion is uncontradicted, such opinion ......
  • Erb v. Colvin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • January 29, 2015
    ...evidence in the record.'" Longworth v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 402 F.3d 591, 595 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Warner v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 375 F.3d 387, 390 (6th Cir. 2004)). See also Walters v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 528 (6th Cir. 1997). The court's review of the decision for substa......
  • Johnson v. Carolyn W. Colvin Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • January 30, 2015
    ...evidence in the record.'" Longworth v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 402 F.3d 591, 595 (6th Cir. 2005)(quoting Warner v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 375 F.3d 387, 390 (6th Cir. 2004)). See also Walters v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 528 (6th Cir. 1997). The court's review of the decision for substan......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume II
    • May 4, 2015
    ...(W.D. Va. 1994), § 210.11 Warmoth v. Bowen , 798 F.2d 1109, 1112 (7th Cir. 1986), §§ 107.16, 1105.2, 1303 Warner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec ., 375 F.3d 387 (6th Cir. June 8, 2004), 6th-04 Warner v. Heckler , 722 F.2d 428, 431 (8th Cir. 1983), § 504.1 Warren v. Shalala , 29 F.3d 1287, 1291 (8th C......
  • Case Index
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume I
    • May 4, 2015
    ...1011 (8th Cir. July 16, 2010), 8th-10 Wagner v. Astrue , 499 F.3d 842 (8th Cir. Aug. 24, 2007), 8th-07 Warner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. , 375 F.3d 387 (6th Cir. June 8, 2004), 6th-04 Weber v. Apfel , 164 F.3d 431 (8th Cir. Jan. 7, 1999), 8th-99 White v. Barnhart , 415 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. July 1......
  • Case index
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. I - 2014 Preliminary Sections
    • August 2, 2014
    ...(8 th Cir. July 16, 2010), 8 th -10 Wagner v. Astrue , 499 F.3d 842 (8 th Cir. Aug. 24, 2007), 8 th -07 Warner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec ., 375 F.3d 387 (6 th Cir. June 8, 2004), 6 th -04 Weber v. Apfel , 164 F.3d 431 (8 th Cir. Jan. 7, 1999), 8 th -99 White v. Barnhart, 415 F.3d 654 (7 th Cir.......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. II - 2014 Contents
    • August 3, 2014
    ...(W.D. Va. 1994), § 210.11 Warmoth v. Bowen , 798 F.2d 1109, 1112 (7th Cir. 1986), §§ 107.16, 1105.2, 1303 Warner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec ., 375 F.3d 387 (6th Cir. June 8, 2004), 6th-04 Warner v. Heckler , 722 F.2d 428, 431 (8th Cir. 1983), § 504.1 A-73 TABLE OF CASES Warren v. Shalala , 29 F.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT