Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sheila Hurt v. Michael J. Astrue

October 13, 2011

SHEILA HURT, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: VICTOR B. Kenton United States Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Social Security Case)

This matter is before the Court for review of the decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff's application for disability benefits. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(c), the parties have consented that the case may be handled by the Magistrate Judge. The action arises under 42 U.S.C. §405(g), which authorizes the Court to enter judgment upon the pleadings and transcript of the record before the Commissioner. The parties have filed the Joint Stipulation ("JS"), and the Commissioner has filed the certified Administrative Record ("AR").

Plaintiff raises the following issues:

1. Whether the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") properly considered the consultative examiner's opinion;

2. Whether the ALJ properly assessed Plaintiff's residual functional capacity; and

3. Whether the ALJ posed an incomplete hypothetical question to the vocational expert.

(JS at 3.)

This Memorandum Opinion will constitute the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. After reviewing the matter, the Court concludes that the decision of the Commissioner must be affirmed.

I

THE ALJ PROPERLY CONSIDERED PLAINTIFF'S MENTAL RESIDUAL FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY AS OF 1982 Plaintiff identifies three issues in this litigation, all of which are interconnected. In her first issue, she contests the ALJ's evaluation of the Complete Psychiatric Evaluation ("CE") of Plaintiff performed on January 14, 2009 by psychiatrist Dr. Bagner. (See Report at AR 529-535.) In her second issue, she asserts that Plaintiff's mental residual functional capacity ("MFRC") was not properly evaluated because the ALJ did not properly factor in Dr. Bagner's evaluation. In the third issue, she asserts that the ALJ posed an incomplete hypothetical question of the vocational expert ("VE") because the hypothetical omitted Dr. Bagner's limitations.

Because of their interrelationship, the Court will address these issues together.

Dr. Bagner performed a psychiatric CE on January 14, 2009, and determined Plaintiff's mental functional limitations, including an assessment that she would have moderate to marked limitations completing a normal work week without interruption. (See AR at 532.) Dr. Bagner concluded that Plaintiff is moderately to markedly limited in her ability to respond appropriately to usual work situations and to changes in a routine work setting. (AR 534.)

Plaintiff's matter had been previously heard by the ALJ, who issued an unfavorable decision on April 15, 2008. Plaintiff was granted review by the Appeals Council, which sent the matter back to the ALJ, based on the fact that diagnostic and treatment records for Plaintiff which went back to 1984 had been lost. Thus, the Appeals Council ordered that, "In light of this evidence and the fact that the medical record was lost, ... a medical expert is necessary to assist the Administrative Law Judge in evaluating the severity of claimant's mental impairments during the remote relevant period." (AR 37.)

Consequently, the ALJ was ordered to obtain evidence from a medical expert regarding the nature and severity of Plaintiff's mental impairments. (AR 38.) The ALJ did this by obtaining a written evaluation from Dr. Glassmire. (AR 536-537.) This evaluation is incorporated into the ALJ's decision. (AR 14-23.) The ALJ gave "great consideration" to the mental functional limitations described by Dr. Bagner. But the ALJ noted that Dr. Glassmire had rendered an ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.