Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

motion

Related Cases

Groetzinger v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 69 T.C. 309
View Case »
Glazer v. Commissioner of Social Security, 92 Fed.Appx. 312, 2004 WL 551477
View Case »
Emershaw v. C. I. R., T.C. Memo. 1990-246, 1990 WL 65997, 59 T.C.M. (CCH) 621, T.C.M. (P-H) P 90,246, 1990 PH TC Memo 90,246
View Case »
Greenlee v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2010 WL 11688472
View Case »
Yourman v. U.S., 277 F.Supp. 818, 21 A.F.T.R.2d 346, 68-1 USTC P 9135
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Doak v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2022 WL 8217036

Facts

Christopher Kenneth Doak, born in 1966, worked as a cook, roofer, and stocker before ceasing work on April 15, 2017. After previous applications for benefits were denied, he applied again on December 6, 2019, claiming disability beginning September 19, 2019. The ALJ found that Doak had severe impairments, including osteoarthritis, COPD, obesity, PTSD, and depression-bipolar disorder, and proceeded through the five-step sequential process to evaluate his claim.

Doak was born in 1966, Tr. 273, 276, 278, and worked as a cook, roofer, and stocker, Tr. 343, before ceasing work on April 15, 2017, Tr. 342. The Social Security Administration (SSA) denied prior applications on September 18, 2019. Tr. 70–87. He applied again on December 6, 2019, Tr. 276–86, alleging he had become disabled on September 19, 2019, Tr. 276, 278, 341.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the residual functional capacity (RFC) was supported by substantial evidence and whether the ALJ properly evaluated the medical opinions of Dr. Alex Arce.

Doak makes two arguments. First, he argues the residual functional capacity (RFC) is not supported by substantial evidence. Second, he argues the ALJ improperly evaluated the medical opinions of Dr. Alex Arce, his primary care physician.

Rule

The court applied the standard of substantial evidence, which means relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The ALJ is responsible for assessing medical and other evidence to determine a claimant's RFC.

A court's review of the Acting Commissioner's decision is limited to whether substantial evidence supports the factual findings and whether the correct legal standards were applied.

Analysis

The court found that the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and that substantial evidence supported the RFC determination. The ALJ considered various medical records and opinions, including those from Dr. Arce, and explained why they were not fully persuasive. The ALJ's findings regarding Doak's ability to perform light work, despite limitations in balancing, were deemed consistent with the evidence presented.

Contrary to Doak's argument, substantial evidence supports the RFC. The evidence includes musculoskeletal testing showing he has normal tone and motor strength, normal movement of all extremities, and normal gait and station; testing showing he has normal breath sounds and no wheezing; records showing his depression improved with medication with no adverse reaction; psychiatric testing with findings within normal limits except only fair memory; a report indicating he had no difficulty getting on and off the exam-room table and chair; a report indicating no pain on back palpation; a self-report that he was 'doing well' on his medications; his denial of shortness of breath and wheezing at an appointment; treatment notes indicating his COPD was stable; only mild abnormal findings on an echocardiogram; 'appropriate' respiratory findings and good neurological findings; a chest X-ray showing clear lungs and no active disease; testing showing good range of motion and strength in upper and lower extremities; and opinions from state-agency medical consultants stating he can perform light exertional work with postural limitations.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the Acting Commissioner's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's findings and that the correct legal standards were applied.

Because substantial evidence supports the findings and the ALJ applied the correct legal standards, the undersigned recommends affirming the Acting Commissioner's decision.

Who won?

The Acting Commissioner of Social Security prevailed in the case because the court found that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence and adhered to the correct legal standards.

The undersigned recommends affirming the Acting Commissioner's decision and directing the clerk to enter judgment for the Acting Commissioner and against Christopher Kenneth Doak and close the file.

You must be