United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Paducah Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Thomas
B. Russell, Senior Judge
Tracie
Sue Hopkins brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
405(g) to obtain judicial review of the Commissioner of
Social Security's decision to deny her applications for
disability benefits, disability insurance benefits, and
supplemental security income. After Hopkins filed a motion
for summary judgment, [DN 11; DN 12], the Magistrate Judge
filed a report and recommendation regarding its appropriate
disposition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Subsequently, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court
affirm the Commissioner's decision, deny Hopkins'
motion, and dismiss her complaint. [DN 19.] Hopkins objects
to that course of action, arguing that the ALJ erred when he
improperly weighed the medical opinion evidence of
Hopkins' treating physician and when he improperly
evaluated Hopkins' credibility. [DN 20.] The Commissioner
responded to Hopkins' objection. [DN 22.] Having reviewed
the record, the Court agrees that the ALJ failed to properly
consider the medical opinion evidence of Hopkins'
treating physician. Accordingly, the Court REJECTS the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, [DN 19],
and SUSTAINS IN PART Hopkins' Objection. [DN 20.]
Hopkins' motion for summary judgment [DN 11] is therefore
GRANTED IN PART. The Commissioner's decision is REVERSED
and REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §
405(g) for further proceedings consistent with this
Memorandum Opinion.
BACKGROUND
Tracie
Sue Hopkins filed an application for disability and
disability insurance benefits and an application for
supplemental security income on July 30, 2012. [A.R. at 44.]
She claims that she has been disabled since November 1, 2011.
[Id.] Her alleged disabilities include fibromyalgia,
migraine headaches, irritable bowel syndrome, depression,
obesity, and a history of MRSA infections. [Id. at
47.] The Social Security Administration initially denied both
of Hopkins' applications on November 19, 2012, and, upon
reconsideration, adhered to that decision. [Id. at
44.] At Hopkins' request, Administrative Law Judge Scott
T. Morris held an initial hearing on December 17, 2014, but
Hopkins did not appear. [Id.] However, the ALJ found
good cause for Hopkins' failure to appear, and held a
supplemental hearing on March 4, 2015. [Id.] In
addition to Hopkins, the ALJ heard testimony from vocational
experts Stephanie Barnes and James B. Adams. [Id. at
44.]
The ALJ
denied Hopkins' claims on April 10, 2015. [Id.
at 45.] Using the traditional five-step evaluation for
disability benefits, see 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520(a)(4), the ALJ made the following findings. First,
the ALJ found that Hopkins had not engaged in substantial
gainful activity since the alleged onset date. [A.R. at 46.]
Second, Hopkins has multiple severe impairments, including
fibromyalgia, migraine headaches, and irritable bowel
syndrome (IBS).[1][Id. at 47.] Third, the ALJ found
that Hopkins' impairments do not meet or equal one of the
Commissioner's recognized impairments. [Id. at
50.] Fourth, Hopkins retains the residual functional capacity
to perform a range of light work, although not any of her
past relevant work. [Id. at 50, 53.] Fifth, in light
of her age, education, work experience, and residual
functional capacity, Hopkins is able to perform jobs that
exist in significant numbers in the national economy.
[Id. at 53-54.] The ALJ, therefore, determined that
Hopkins is not disabled within the meaning of the Social
Security Act. [Id. at 54.]
The
Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ's decision on
August 6, 2015. [Id. at 2- 4.] Accordingly, the
ALJ's denial became the final decision of the
Commissioner. Wilson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 378
F.3d 541, 543-44 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Miles v.
Chater, 84 F.3d 1397, 1399 (11th Cir. 1996)). Pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Hopkins brought this action to
obtain judicial review of the Commissioner's decision.
[See DN 1 (Complaint).]
The
Court referred Hopkins' action to Magistrate Judge Lanny
King for a report and recommendation regarding its
appropriate disposition. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court
affirm the Commissioner's decision, deny Hopkins'
motion for summary judgment, and dismiss Hopkins'
complaint. [See DN 19 (Report and Recommendation).]
Hopkins objects to that course of action. [See DN 20
(Hopkins' Objection).] The Commissioner responded to
Hopkins' objection. [See DN 22
(Commissioner's Response).]
STANDARD
It is
well-settled that the Court reviews the objected-to portions
of a report and recommendation de novo. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Its review of the Commissioner's determination is, of
course, more deferential. See 42 U.S.C. §
405(g); Blakley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d
399, 405 (6th Cir. 2009). The scope of that inquiry is
limited to (1) “whether the findings of the ALJ are
supported by substantial evidence” and (2)
“whether the ALJ applied the correct legal
standards.” Miller v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.,
811 F.3d 825, 833 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Blakley,
581 F.3d at 405-06). “Substantial evidence” means
“such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
Lindsley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 560 F.3d 601,
604 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Richardson v. Perales,
402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)). Even if supported by substantial
evidence, however, “a decision of the Commissioner will
not be upheld where the [Social Security Administration]
fails to follow its own regulations and where that error
prejudices a claimant on the merits or deprives the claimant
of a substantial right.” Rabbers v. Comm'r of
Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 647, 651 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting
Bowen v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 478 F.3d 742, 746
(6th Cir. 2007)).
DISCUSSION
In this
case, Hopkins argues that the ALJ erred when he failed to
properly consider the medical opinions of Hopkins'
treating physician, Dr. Christopher King, and when he failed
to properly evaluate the credibility of Hopkins'
testimony. [See DN 12 at 14-22 (Hopkins'
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary
Judgment).]
Dr.
King, a board-certified neurologist, first treated Hopkins
for her fibromyalgia and migraine headaches on February 17,
2011. [Id. at 400, 638.] Dr. King diagnosed Hopkins
with “[u]nspecified myalgia and myositis, ”
“[c]hronic migraine without aura, ” and insomnia.
[Id. at 400.] Hopkins then saw Dr. King for follow
up appointments every three months, [Id. at 638],
including on May 17, 2011, August 22, 2012, October 22, 2012,
May 17, 2013, and August 15, 2013. [Id. at 403, 470,
514, 517, 524.] Dr. King filled out a Headache Impairment
Questionnaire and a Fibromyalgia Impairment Questionnaire for
Hopkins on December 30, 2013. [Id. at 540- 45,
546-51.] On the Headache Impairment Questionnaire, Dr. King
noted that Hopkins' prognosis was “good, ”
but that “she often has migraines that last as long as
three days, ” her pain is “severely intense,
” that the approximate frequency of her migraines was
“weekly, ” and that Hopkins was unable to
tolerate “even ‘low stress'” at work.
[Id. at 638-42.] With regard to “other
limitations that would affect your patient's ability to
work at a regular job on a sustained basis, ” Dr. King
checked the following limitations: psychological limitations,
need to avoid wetness, need to avoid noise, need to avoid
fumes, need to avoid gases, limited vision, need to avoid
temperature extremes, no pushing, no pulling, no kneeling, no
bending, and no stooping. [Id. at 642.]
On the
Fibromyalgia Impairment Questionnaire. Dr. King again stated
that Hopkins' prognosis was “good, ” but
identified Hopkins' primary symptoms as “pain, loss
of sensation, fatigue, depression, IBS, [and]
weakness.” [Id. at 646.] Dr. King identified
the locations of Hopkins' pain as in her lumbrosacral
spine, cervical spine, thoracic spine, chest, shoulders,
arms, hands/fingers, hips, legs, and knees/ankles/feet.
[Id. at 646-47.] Dr. King described the frequency of
Hopkins' pain as “daily, ” the severity of
her pain as a nine out of ten, and opined that Hopkins could
only sit between 0-1 hours in an eight-hour day and could
only stand/walk between 0-1 hours in an eight-hour day.
[Id. at 647-48.] Moreover, Dr. King opined that
Hopkins must get up to move around every twenty minutes and
could not sit again for twenty minutes. [Id.] As far
as lifting, Dr. King stated that Hopkins could occasionally
lift or carry between 0-20 pounds but could never lift or
carry more than that. [Id.] Dr. King further
estimated that Hopkins would sometimes need to take
unscheduled breaks during an eight-hour workday, and that
these unscheduled breaks would occur “at least every 30
mins” and would last twenty minutes. [Id. at
649.] Moreover, Hopkins would need to be absent from work due
to her limitations approximately “two to three times a
month.” [Id.] Dr. King again noted that
Hopkins is unable to tolerate any stressful
situations.” [Id.]
The ALJ
gave Dr. King's medical opinions “little
weight.” [Id. at 52.] In doing so, the ALJ
stated that, although Dr. King opined that Hopkins was
“severely limited due to her impairments, ” these
assessments were not supported by objective medical evidence,
were inconsistent with the opinions of the examining and
reviewing physicians, and relied heavily on ...