Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-14-01253/USCOURTS-ca8-14-01253-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carolyn W. Colvin
Appellee
Charlotte Ann Romine
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-1253

___________________________

Charlotte Ann Romine

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Carolyn W. Colvin, Commissioner, Social Security Administration

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

____________

 Submitted: January 16, 2015

 Filed: April 28, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM. 

Appellate Case: 14-1253 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/28/2015 Entry ID: 4269381 
Charlotte Romine appeals the district court's affirmance of the Social Security

1

Commissioner's ("Commissioner") decision denying her claim for supplemental

security income and disability insurance benefits. We affirm.

I. Background

Romine filed applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental

security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, alleging a

disability onset of November 10, 2009, due to neuropathy, psoriatic arthritis, carpal

tunnelsyndrome, and fibromyalgia. The Commissioner deniedRomine's applications

at the initial and reconsideration levels, and Romine requested an administrative

hearing. 

At the time of the hearing, Romine was 39 years old. Romine has a twelfthgrade education. In her disability applications, Romine stated thatshe had no problem

with personal care, cared for her son and pets, prepared meals, did laundry and some

cleaning, drove a car, shopped, handled money, attended church, and visited family. 

The following medical evidence was produced at the hearing. Romine went to

the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) on June 29, 2010,

complaining of joint pains in both knees and feet. Dr. Elizabeth Russell noted upon

examination that Romine had full range of motion but observed some synovitis and

swelling in her feet and tenderness in her thoracic and lumbar spine. Dr. Russell

diagnosed probable psoriatic arthritis and neuropathy and ordered lab work and

objective testing. X-rays of Romine's thoracic and lumbar spinal regions, pelvis,

hands, and feet showed sacralization at L-5 and mild spurring at the calcaneus

bilaterally but "NO SIGNIFICANT ARTHRITIC CHANGES IDENTIFIED."

The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

1

the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-1253 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/28/2015 Entry ID: 4269381 
On June 15, 2010, Romine went to UAMS for a follow-up visit, complaining

of pain in her right foot, right knee, and low back. Dr. Russell prescribed Darvocet,

Methotrexate, and folic acid, and she ordered Romine to return for treatment in three

weeks. 

On August 4, 2010, Romine went to UAMS for an electromyography and

nerve-conduction study performed by Dr. Betul Gundogdu, a neurologist. Dr.

Gundogdu's impression was that Romine had chronic right L5 radiculopathy and

carpal tunnel syndrome in the right wrist. 

On August 5, 2010, Romine returned to UAMS for her follow-up visit and

reported the same symptoms that she reported during previous visit. Dr. Russell

increased the dosage of Methotrexate and ordered a magnetic resonance imaging

(MRI) scan of the lumbar spine. The MRI scan was performed on August 13, 2010,

and showed no significant disc abnormality, neural foraminal narrowing, or spinal

canal stenosis. But it did show mild facet joint arthropathy and fluid in the face joints

at L2-3, L3-4, and L4-5. 

On September 2, 2010, state-agency consultant Dr. Bill Payne reviewed

Romine's medical records and reported that she maintained the functional capacity

to perform light work activity with postural limitations. 

On September 14, 2010, Dr. Russell completed a "Confidential Report of

Medical Examination of Patient" on Romine for the Arkansas Department of Human

Services. The date of the exam is listed as August 5, 2010. Under "Medical History,"

Dr. Russell indicated that Romine was "just beginning medical treatment" for "pain

and swelling of joints due to psoriatic arthritis." She also noted that Romine had pain

down her right leg and evidence of L-5 radiculopathy and carpal tunnelsyndrome. Dr.

Russell listed her "Significant Findings" as "synovitis (warmth, swelling, tenderness)

in MCP, MTP, wrist joints bilaterally." She placed a "Minimal Limitation" on

-3-

Appellate Case: 14-1253 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/28/2015 Entry ID: 4269381 
standing and a "Moderate Limitation" on stooping, kneeling, walking, pushing,

pulling, and carrying. Dr. Russell also placed a five-pound lifting limitation on

Romine. When asked to give an estimate of the length of time that Romine's psoriatic

arthritis would prevent Romine from performing any gainful work activity, Dr.

Russell stated that it was "unclear." But Dr. Russell opined that Romine's condition

was improving. 

Dr. Robert A. Ortmann and Dr. Alina Voinea saw Romine during a follow-up

visit at UAMS on September 21, 2010. Dr. Voinea referred Romine to pain

management for injection of her lumbar facet joints and recommended thatshe follow

up with Dr. Russell in three months. 

On November 3, 2010, Romine went to UAMS complaining of low back pain

and requesting facet joint injections. Dr. Ahmed Ghaleb noted that Romine's gait was

antalgic to the right and thatshe was able to do toe- and heel-walking with some pain.

Dr. Ghaleb stated that he explained the risks, benefits, and alternatives of performing

injections and would have Romine scheduled for the procedure. Romine received the

facet joint injections on November 18, 2010. 

Romine saw Sandra D. Canterberry, a nurse practitioner at AR Care, on

December 15, 2010. Canterberry noted that Romine complained of joint pain but

stated that her medications were helping. 

Romine returned to the UAMS Rheumatology Clinic for a follow-up visit on

December 20, 2010. Romine continued to complain of low back pain and swelling in

her joints. Dr. Russell slightly modified Romine's prescriptions and completed a

medical source statement (MSS). In the MSS, Dr. Russell opined that Romine could

lift and carry lessthan ten poundsfrequently or occasionally, stand and walk lessthan

two hours, and sit less than four hours in an eight-hour workday. Dr. Russell

indicated that Romine would need the following special requirements at the

-4-

Appellate Case: 14-1253 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/28/2015 Entry ID: 4269381 
workplace: (1) changing positions frequently, (2) frequent rest periods, and (3) the

opportunity to shift, at will, from sitting or standing/walking. Dr. Russell indicated

that Romine would not need to elevate her feet or have longer than normal breaks. Dr.

Russell set forth the following "medicalfindings [to] support [Romine's] limitations":

This patient has ongoing synovitis (inflammation) of her wrists, tendons

in her hands, small joints of the hands, and both knees as well as spine.

She is unable to grip and repeatedly grasp due to swelling and pain in

these areas and currently is unable to squat, kneel or engage in

prolonged walking or sitting due to her spinal inflammation/pain. 

As toRomine's "Manipulative Restrictions," Dr. Russellindicated thatRomine

was unable to reach, finger, or handle. To support these findings, Dr. Russell

explained that Romine "hasswelling and pain from inflammation involving her hand

and wrist joints, as well astendons in both hands, making it very difficult to grasp and

pinch."

Additionally, Dr. Russell indicated thatRomine wasto "[a]void [c]oncentrated

[e]xposure" to extreme heat, high humidity, solvents/cleaners, and chemicals and to

"[a]void [e]ven [m]oderate [e]xposure" to extreme cold. Dr. Russell imposed "[n]o

[r]estriction[s]" on Romine's exposure to fumes, odors, dusts, and gases; perfumes;

soldering fluxes; and sunlight.

Dr. Russell anticipated thatRomine's impairments ortreatment would cause her

to be absent from work "[a]bout 1 day a month." When asked whether "[t]he

limitations have lasted or are expected to last for at least one year or longer," Dr.

Russell checked "[n]o" and explained that Romine "is presently undergoing

treatment: hopefully she will improve." 

On January 24, 2011, Romine again saw Dr. Russell at the UAMS

Rheumatology Clinic. Dr. Russell noted "[n]o active synovitis but synovial

-5-

Appellate Case: 14-1253 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/28/2015 Entry ID: 4269381 
thickening of scattered flexor tendons, MCPs, wrists, ankles" and that Romine's

lumbar spine was "painful with twisting." Dr. Russell also noted mild degenerative

joint disease and recommended a retrial of Methorexate before considering any

further treatment. 

Dr. Russell examined Romine again on March 7, 2011, noting similar findings

as the prior visit. Dr. Russell prescribed Humira and decreased Romine's dosage of

Methotrexate. 

At a follow-up visit on April 21, 2011, Dr. Russell noted that Romine had

improved considerablysince beginning Humira, and I amcontinuing her

on that plus methotrexate over the coming weeks. She has very minimal

synovitis in her wrists and hands only at this time. Her cutaneous

psoriasis is also significantly improved. She is having some difficulty

with fibromyalgia, and I discussed with her the rational[e] for treatment

for that. 

Dr. Russell's notes from the follow-up visit further indicated that Romine had

started Humira for her psoriatic arthritis "just 2 months ago [approximately February

2011] and is not clear if she feels better or not." But Dr. Russell reported that Romine

"does feel that the swelling isimproved in her joints, although she isstill complaining

of 1 hour of morning stiffness in her hands and low back. She feels she still has pain

in her wrists, elbows, knees, and ankles, although it issomewhat better." Romine told

Dr. Russell that she had "pain over the muscles of the superior shoulders and

. . . [could not] sleep because she ran out of gabapentin." Dr. Russell noted that

Romine "has minimal thickness in the wrists and flexor tendons bilaterally as well as

both ankles. These are not tender, and there is no evidence of synovitis elsewhere.

She has a full range of motion." Dr. Russell also noted that Romine was independent

in her activities of daily living, including bathing, dressing, grooming, feeding, and

ambulating. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 14-1253 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/28/2015 Entry ID: 4269381 
Dr. Russell's impression of Romine's psoriatic arthritis was that the condition

"has improved, although I think it is not completely controlled. Given that [Romine]

is continuing to improve, I will maintain the Humira and watch for another month or

so." Dr. Russell's plan was to "[c]ontinue Humira and methotrexate at the same

doses." Dr. Russell also "advise[d] aerobic exercise schedule daily, to start gradually,

as well as efforts to improve her sleep."

At the administrative hearing, Romine testified that she had swelling and

inflammation in her joints, which made it difficult for her to grasp items, bend, squat,

sit, and stoop. She stated that she took shots of Methotrexate weekly and Humira

every other week, which improved her conditions. She testified that her doctor

restricted her from lifting more than five pounds and thatshe cared for her school-age

son, including preparing meals, taking her son to doctor appointments, shopping, and

performing light housework. 

The administrative law judge (ALJ) posed to Vocational Expert (VE) Mack

Welch a hypothetical question limiting an individual to light work activity with no

exposure to hazards, no climbing of ladders, ropes or scaffolds, and no more than

occasional postural activities. Welch testified that such an individual could perform

other work as a cashier, for which there were 100,000 regional jobs and 500,000

national jobs; as a hand packer, for which there were 81,000 regional jobs and

400,000 national jobs; and as a bench assembler, for which there were 53,000

regional jobs and 250,000 national jobs. 

The ALJ employed the mandatory five-step sequential evaluation process and

determined that although Romine had severe impairments, those impairments did not

meet or equal a listing. The ALJ found that Romine had the residual functional

capacity (RFC) to do lessthan a full range of light work. Based on Welch's testimony

that there were a significant number of jobs in the economy which Romine could

perform with her limitations, the ALJ determined that she was not disabled under the

-7-

Appellate Case: 14-1253 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/28/2015 Entry ID: 4269381 
Social Security Act. In reaching his conclusion, the ALJ summarized the evidence as

follows:

After careful consideration of the evidence, the undersigned finds that

the claimant's medically determinable impairments could reasonably be

expected to cause the alleged symptoms; however, the claimant's

statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of

these symptoms are not credible to the extent they are inconsistent with

the above residual functional capacity assessment. 

The UAMS RheumatologyClinic report dated April 21, 2011 states Ms.

Romine was independent for her activities of daily living. While this

finding does not directly contradict the claimant's testimony or her

daughter's testimony, it does suggest that Ms. Romine's movements are

less restricted than is alleged. The UAMS finding that Ms. Romine is

independent in her ambulation does not conform to the testimony that

she can walk just 20–30 steps. Nor does the independent rating for

bathing, dressing, and grooming support the claimant's allegation of

great pain and stiffness in her hands and wrists. On March 7, 2011, she

had no deformity and only mild active synovitis in the MCPs and flexor

tendons. There was some swelling in her wrists and ankles, but no fluid

palp. Her other joints showed no active synovitis (9F, p.5). Ms.

Romine's swelling was reduced through taking Humira. Her morning

stiffness in her hands and low back was limited to an hour. 

In sum, the above residual functional capacity assessment is supported

by DDS medical consultant Dr. Bill Payne's Physical Residual

Functional Capacity Assessment. Dr. Payne saw Ms. Romine's postural

activities being occasionally limited. There were no fine or gross

manipulation limitations and no limitations on reaching in all directions.

Dr. Payne considered Ms. Romine able to stand and/or walk or sit for

about 6 hours in an 8-hour workday (4F).

Limited weight is granted Dr. Russell's medical source statement. It

shows the claimant with significant limitations. Yet, on September 14,

2010, Dr. Russell expressed the view that Ms. Romine's arthritis and

-8-

Appellate Case: 14-1253 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/28/2015 Entry ID: 4269381 
lumbar radiculopathy were improving. At that time, Ms. Romine had

only moderate limitations for stooping, kneeling, walking, pushing,

pulling, and carrying. Her standing was limited, but only minimally

(12F, p. 4). Therefore, the undersigned finds Dr. Russell's views to be

somewhat inconsistent. Also, the medical reports aside from Dr.

Russell's medical source statement do not generally support the level of

impairment and restriction it gives Ms. Romine. 

(Emphases added.)

Following the ALJ's decision, the Appeals Council found no reason to review

the ALJ's decision and denied Romine's request for review. Romine then appealed to

the district court, and the district court affirmed the Commissioner's decision. 

II. Discussion

On appeal, Romine argues that the ALJ erred by not giving controlling weight

to the opinion of Romine's treating physician, Dr. Russell. She also asserts that the

ALJ asked hypothetical questions to the VE based on an RFC that was substantially

inconsistent with Dr. Russell's conclusions. 

We review de novo the district court's affirmance of the Commissioner's denial

of disability benefits and will affirmthe Commissioner "if 'the Commissioner's denial

of benefits complies with the relevant legal requirements and is supported by

substantial evidence in the record as a whole.'" Cline v. Colvin, 771 F.3d 1098, 1102

(8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Ford v. Astrue, 518 F.3d 979, 981 (8th Cir. 2008)). 

Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance but is enough that a

reasonable mind would find it adequate to support the Commissioner's

conclusion. In determining whether existing evidence is substantial, we

consider evidence that detracts from the Commissioner's decision as

well as evidence that supports it. As long as substantial evidence in the

record supports the Commissioner's decision, we may not reverse it

-9-

Appellate Case: 14-1253 Page: 9 Date Filed: 04/28/2015 Entry ID: 4269381 
because substantial evidence exists in the record that would have

supported a contrary outcome, or because we would have decided the

case differently.

Id. (quotation and citation omitted). 

The social security regulations provide that "the commissioner will generally

give a treating physician's 'opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [a

claimant's]impairment(s)' 'controlling weight' when it 'is well-supported by medically

acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with

the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.'" Id. at 1103 (alterations in

original) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(2)). But because 2

the ALJ must evaluate the record as a whole, the opinions of treating

physicians do not automatically control. Turpin v. Colvin, 750 F.3d 989,

993 (8th Cir. 2014). "A treating physician's opinion is given controlling

weight if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and

laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other

substantial evidence." Reed v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 917, 920 (8th Cir.

2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "An ALJ may

discount or even disregard the opinion of a treating physician where

other medical assessments are supported by better or more thorough

medical evidence, or where a treating physician renders inconsistent

opinions that undermine the credibility of such opinions." Goff [v.

Barnhart], 421 F.3d [785,] 790 [(8th Cir. 2005)] (internal quotation

marks and citation omitted). An ALJ may also give less weight to a

conclusory or inconsistent opinion by a treating physician. Samons v.

Astrue, 497 F.3d 813, 818 (8th Cir. 2007).

Bernard v. Colvin, 774 F.3d 482, 487 (8th Cir. 2014).

"For clarity, we note the agency moved the operative language from

2

§ 416.927(d)(2) to § 416.927(c)(2) in 2012." Id. at 1103 n.3. 

-10-

Appellate Case: 14-1253 Page: 10 Date Filed: 04/28/2015 Entry ID: 4269381 
An "ALJ [is] not required to give controlling weight" to a treating physician's

opinion where substantial evidence in the record exists "to support the ALJ's finding

that certain opinions in the Medical Source Statement are inconsistent with [the

treating physician's] own treatment notes and other relevant evidence." Perkins v.

Astrue, 648 F.3d 892, 899 (8th Cir. 2011); see also Teague v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 611,

616 (8th Cir. 2011) ("Substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision to discount

the opinions of Dr. Lowder and Dr. Moore regarding Teague's functional limitations.

Dr. Lowder's MSS did not cite clinical test results, observations, or other objective

findings as a basis for determining Teague's capabilities."); Juszczyk v. Astrue, 542

F.3d 626, 632 (8th Cir. 2008) ("The ALJ rejected Dr. Stanley's assessment because

it wasinconsistent with Dr. Stanley's own treatment notes, with objective testing, and

with other medical evidence in the record. Our review of the record, including reports

from Dr. Pulcher, Dr. King, Dr. Flageman, and the Truman Medical Center confirms

the ALJ's conclusion."); Hogan v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 958, 961 (8th Cir. 2001)

(concluding that the ALJ did not err in discounting the inconsistent and unsupported

portions of treating physician's medical source statement, where the ALJ found that

the limitations detailed in the statement stood alone and were never mentioned in the

physician's numerous records of treatment, nor were they supported by any objective

testing or reasoning which would indicate why the claimant's functioning needed to

be so restricted, and where claimant's condition was repeatedly described in

physician's notes as "mild," the records from claimant's other physicians indicated

that her condition was being controlled by medication, and the weight of the medical

evidence was more in keeping with the restrictions described by the consulting

physician). 

Thus, while the general rule is that "the report of a consulting physician who

examined a claimant once does not constitute substantial evidence upon the record

as a whole, especially when contradicted by the evaluation of the claimant's treating

physician," an ALJ may credit a consulting physician's opinion over a treating

physician's opinion "where a treating physician renders inconsistent opinions that

-11-

Appellate Case: 14-1253 Page: 11 Date Filed: 04/28/2015 Entry ID: 4269381 
undermine the credibility of such opinions." Wagner v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 842, 849

(quotations and citations omitted). 

"Upon reviewing the ALJ's reasons for discounting some of Dr. [Russell]'s

opinions in the Medical Source Statement, we conclude that the ALJ did not err."

Perkins, 648 F.3d at 899 (citation omitted). First, a comparison between the

September 14, 2010 report and the December 20, 2010 MSS show inconsistencies in

Dr. Russell's opinions. In September 2010, when Rominewas "just beginning medical

treatment," Dr. Russell placed a "Minimal Limitation" on Romine's standing; by

contrast, in the MSS, Dr. Russell placed the greatest limitation on Romine's

standing—less than two hours in an eight-hour day. Furthermore, in her written notes

in the MSS, Dr. Russell stated that Romine is "unable to squat, kneel, or engage in

prolonged walking or sitting due to her spinal inflammation/pain." Dr. Russell's

conclusion that Romine is "unable" to do these activities is a drastic shift from her

observation two months prior in the September report that Romine was "improving"

and Dr. Russell's placement of minimal restrictions on Romine's standing and

moderate restrictions on Romine's stooping, kneeling, and walking.

Second, "[t]he record as a whole in this case, including the inconsistencies in

the evidence, [Romine's] daily activities, and the effectiveness [of her] medication,

casts significant doubt on both [Romine's] and Dr. [Russell]'s . . . assertions that

[Romine] could not perform sedentary work during her coverage period." Ponder v.

Colvin, 770 F.3d 1190, 1194 (8th Cir. 2014) (third alteration in original) (quotations

and citation omitted). Like the September report, the April 21, 2011 notes indicate

Romine's continued improvement. Specifically, Dr. Russell opined that Romine had

"improved considerably since beginning Humira." Dr. Russell also indicated in the

April notes that Romine had "very minimal synovitis in her wrists and hands." "An

impairment which can be controlled by treatment or medication is not considered

disabling." Estes v. Barnhart, 275 F.3d 722, 725 (8th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).

-12-

Appellate Case: 14-1253 Page: 12 Date Filed: 04/28/2015 Entry ID: 4269381 
The April notes also show that Dr. Russell recommended that Romine begin

daily aerobic exercise. "A lack of functional restrictions on the claimant's activities

is inconsistent with a disability claim where, as here, the claimant's treating

physician[] [is] recommending increased physical exercise." Moore v. Astrue, 572

F.3d 520, 524 (8th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). 

Finally, the functional assessment of Romine from her visit to the UAMS

RheumatologyClinic on April 21, 2011, providesthat Romine is "independent" in all

areas—bathing, grooming, feeding, and ambulation. 

We therefore hold "that the ALJ could credit the opinion of the consulting

physician over that of the claimant's [treating physician, Dr. Russell,] because of

inconsistencies in [Dr. Russell's] opinions." Wagner, 499 F.3d at 849 (citing

Anderson v. Barnhart, 344 F.3d 809, 812 (8th Cir. 2003)). "While we acknowledge[]

that the consulting physician 'did not have the same treating relationship that [Dr.

Russell] had with [Romine],' we conclude[] that the consulting physician's opinion

was not tainted with the apparent inconsistencies of [Dr. Russell's] assessment.'" Id.

at 849–50 (quoting Anderson, 344 F.3d at 813). For that reason, the ALJ did not err

in basing his RFC assessment on Dr. Payne's conclusion that Romine maintained the

functional capacity to perform light work activity with postural limitations. 

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, we affirm the denial of benefits. 

______________________________

-13-

Appellate Case: 14-1253 Page: 13 Date Filed: 04/28/2015 Entry ID: 4269381