determining that substantial evidence was lacking where there was no medical assessment of claimant’s residual functional capacity and the claimant’s testimony was inconsistent with the ALJ’s assessment
How later courts described this case
- determining that substantial evidence was lacking where there was no medical assessment of claimant’s residual functional capacity and the claimant’s testimony was inconsistent with the ALJ’s assessment
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JENNIFER MARIE CALHOUN * CIVIL ACTION
versus * NO. 18-9574
ANDREW SAUL, COMMISSIONER * SECTION "F"
OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the plaintiff’s objection to Magistrate
Judge Roby’s Report and Recommendations that the Court affirm the
Administrative Law Judge’s decision denying the plaintiff’s
disability insurance benefits claim. For the reasons that follow,
the Court SUSTAINS the plaintiff’s objections insofar as she
objects that the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial
evidence, REJECTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendations
insofar as it determined that the ALJ’s decision was supported by
substantial evidence, and REMANDS this matter to the Social
Security Administration for further proceedings.
The plaintiff presents two objections to the magistrate
judge’s Report & Recommendations: (1) an ALJ may not substitute
his medical opinions for those of treating sources; and (2) there
is not substantial evidence to support rejecting the treating
physician opinions nor to support a finding that plaintiff can
1
perform light work. The ALJ found that the plaintiff’s combination
of impairments resulted in certain limitations on her ability to
work, but that she had the residual functional capacity to perform
a reduced range of light exertional level work. In reaching this
determination, the ALJ purported to give partial weight to treating
physicians’ opinions. But even the Commissioner suggests that no
treating physician rendered an opinion on Calhoun’s limitations on
her ability to work and, yet, the Commissioner contends that the
ALJ’s determination regarding Calhoun’s ability to perform light
work is supported by substantial evidence. The Court disagrees.
The Commissioner agrees that the case literature instructs
that “[u]sually, the ALJ should request a medical source statement
describing the types of work that the applicant is still capable
of performing.” Ripley v. Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 556-58 (5th Cir.
1995)(determining that substantial evidence was lacking where
there was no medical assessment of claimant’s residual functional
capacity and the claimant’s testimony was inconsistent with the
ALJ’s assessment). The ALJ is obliged “to develop the record fully
and fairly when [the ALJ concludes] that [the claimant is] capable
of performing sedentary work, even though there was no medical
testimony supporting this conclusion.” Id. at 557. Even when the
ALJ fails to develop the record, however, the existing record
itself must offer substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s
2
conclusion. To be sure, there was limited evidence concerning
Calhoun’s limitations bearing on her ability to work. An absence
of medical evidence on this point certainly undermined the ALJ’s
ability to determine that substantial evidence supported a finding
regarding Calhoun’s functional capacity to sit or stand for a work
day in order to perform light work.
Consulting the existing record, there is not substantial
evidence to support the ALJ’s determination that the plaintiff can
perform light work. Substantial evidence is “more than a mere
scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v.
Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)(citations omitted). To be sure,
this is not a high threshold. Nevertheless, it is not met here.
It is undisputed that the ALJ did not give controlling weight to
the opinions of a treating neurologist and a treating nurse
practitioner; the ALJ gave partial weight to opinion of another
treating physician to the extent it was consistent with the
plaintiff’s ability to perform less than the full range of light
work. While the ALJ may have been correct in rejecting or giving
only partial weight to treating physicians’ opinions, the Court
would strain to characterize as “substantial” the evidence relied
upon by the ALJ to support the residual functional capacity
conclusion. For example, the ALJ relied upon a report indicating
3
that the plaintiff reported getting her children up and ready for
the school bus, doing laundry, watching television, and helping
her children with homework. The record also offers a great deal
of evidence concerning a litany of impairments suffered by Calhoun,
including disc bulge and spinal stenosis; artery ectasia/basilar
artery aneurysm; cardiac arrhythmia; hypothyroidism; and basilar
migraine with vertigo. What the record does not establish is the
effect of Calhoun’s ailments on her ability to work.
Although the case literature is admittedly mixed, with
plaintiffs leaning on cases where the ALJ’s findings were not
supported by substantial evidence and the Commissioner focusing on
the ALJ’s prerogative to determine residual functional capacity,
the Court finds that the evidence supporting the ALJ’s finding in
this case is insubstantial. Consider Williams v. Astrue, 355 F.
App’x 828 (5th Cir. 2009), where the Fifth Circuit held that the
ALJ’s finding was not supported by substantial evidence. There,
the ALJ did not give controlling weight to the opinions of the
plaintiff’s three treating physicians and concluded that the
plaintiff was capable of performing a full range of light work.
Williams, 355 F. App’x at 829. The Fifth Circuit noted that there
was no evidence to support the ALJ’s finding, observing that the
ALJ substituted his own medical opinion regarding the plaintiff’s
stenosis and spurring and failed to consider a physical therapy
4
discharge summary that states that the plaintiff could only stand
for 30 minutes at a time. Id. at 831-32.
Consider also, for example, Songy v. Berryhill, No. 17-10209,
2019 WL 632299 (E.D. La. Feb. 13, 2019), where another Section of
this Court found that there was no evidence supporting the ALJ’s
residual functional capacity finding. There, the ALJ gave the
plaintiff’s two treating physicians’ opinions little weight and
partial weight, respectively. Songy, 2019 WL 632299 at *2. The
plaintiff contended that the ALJ had improperly substituted her
own medical opinions for those of the treating physicians. Id. at
*4. Chief Judge Brown noted that there was no evidence that
supported the ALJ’s finding that the plaintiff could stand or walk
for six hours in an eight-hour day, given that the ALJ did not
give weight to the treating physicians’ opinions and did not rely
on other evidence that substantially supported her finding. Id. at
*8.
Like in Williams and Songy, the ALJ here did not give
controlling weight to any of the plaintiff’s treating physicians’
opinions. Additionally, the ALJ here had limited (if any) evidence
upon which to base the residual functional capacity conclusion.
Given the dearth of evidence probative of the effect of Calhoun’s
impairments on her ability to work, there is less than substantial
evidence supporting the ALJ’s finding, particularly in light of
5
the plaintiff’s treating physicians’ opinions, or, even accepting
the Commissioner’s argument that the treating physicians did not
opine on Calhoun’s work-related limitations.
On this record, the Court cannot adopt the magistrate judge’s
finding that the ALJ’s conclusion (that the plaintiff has the
capacity to perform some range of light exertional level work) is
supported by substantial evidence. Nor can the Court find that
the record compels the conclusion that Calhoun was disabled during
the period from January 21, 2015 to March 31, 2017. Remand for
additional proceedings is required.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: that the plaintiff’s objections
are hereby SUSTAINED insofar as she objects that the ALJ’s decision
was not supported by substantial evidence, the magistrate judge’s
Report & Recommendations is hereby REJECTED insofar as it
determined that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial
evidence, and the matter is hereby REMANDED to the Social Security
Administration for further proceedings consistent with this Order
and Reasons. Specifically, administrative proceedings shall be
conducted to determine the plaintiff’s residual functional
capacity. The Court is mindful that judicial review is limited in
scope and highly deferential; the Court does not purport to direct
a particular outcome upon remand. The ALJ has the prerogative to
weigh evidence and resolve conflicts in the evidence. In the
6
course of doing so, the ALJ shall obtain clarification from the
plaintiff’s treating physician(s) regarding the plaintiff's
limitations, obtain a supplemental medical source statement from
a consultative examiner regarding Ms. Calhoun’s limitations, or
both, in addition to considering other evidence necessary to
determine the plaintiff’s residual functional capacity.
New Orleans, Louisiana, April 16, 2020
MARTIN LDMAN
UNITED STAT DISTRICT JUDGE