IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

CAROLLYN F. COCHRAN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Action 2:10-CV-996

Judge Sargus

Magistrate Judge King 

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is an action instituted under the provisions of 42 U.S.C.

§§ 405(g), 1383(c) for review of a final decision of the Commissioner of

Social Security denying plaintiff’s applications for disability insurance

benefits and supplemental security income. This matter is now before the

Court on plaintiff’s Statement of Specific Errors, Doc. No. 11, the

Commissioner’s Memorandum in Opposition, Doc. No. 14, and plaintiff’s

Reply, Doc. No. 15.

Plaintiff Carollyn F. Cochran filed her applications for

benefits in August 2006, alleging that she has been disabled since June

8 of that year. The applications were denied initially and on

reconsideration and plaintiff requested a de novo hearing before an

administrative law judge. On June 22, 2009, plaintiff, represented by

counsel, appeared and testified at the administrative hearing, as did

Casey Vass, who testified as a vocational expert.

In a decision dated September 15, 2009, the administrative law

judge found that plaintiff’s physical and mental impairments, considered

Case: 2:10-cv-00996-EAS-NMK Doc #: 16 Filed: 02/13/12 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>
singly and in combination, do not significantly limit her ability to

perform basic work activities. Because plaintiff does not have a severed

impairment or combination of impairments, the administrative law judge

concluded that plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the Social

Security Act. A.R. 17. That decision became the final decision of the

Commissioner of Social Security when the Appeals Council declined review

on September 16, 2010.

Plaintiff contends that plaintiff is disabled by “an injurious

left wrist sprain and left carpal tunnel syndrome,” Statement of Errors,

p.1, and that the administrative law judge erred in giving no weight to

the opinion of plaintiff’s treating internist, Frederic A. Humphrey,

D.O., in this regard.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §405(g), judicial review of the

Commissioner’s decision is limited to determining whether the findings

of the administrative law judge are supported by substantial evidence and 

employed the proper legal standards. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389

(1971); Longworth v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 402 F.3d 591, 595 (6th Cir.

2005). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Jones v. Comm’r

of Soc. Sec., 336 F.3d 469, 475 (6th Cir. 2003); Kirk v. Secretary of

Health & Human Servs., 667 F.2d 524, 535 (6th Cir. 1981). This Court

does not try the case de novo, nor does it resolve conflicts in the

evidence or questions of credibility. Bass v. McMahon, 499 F.3d 506, 509

(6th Cir. 2007). 

In determining the existence of substantial evidence, this

Court must examine the administrative record as a whole. Kirk, 667 F.2d

at 536. If the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial

evidence, it must be affirmed even if this Court would decide the matter

differently, Tyra v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 896 F.2d 1024, 1028

2

Case: 2:10-cv-00996-EAS-NMK Doc #: 16 Filed: 02/13/12 Page: 2 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>
(6th Cir. 1990)(citing Kinsella v. Schweiker, 708 F.2d 1058, 1059 (6th

Cir. 1983)), and even if substantial evidence also supports the opposite

conclusion. Longworth, 402 F.3d at 595.

Plaintiff’s Testimony

Plaintiff was 59 years of age at the time the administrative

law judge issued his decision. She has an 11th grade education. She has

not engaged in substantial gainful employment since her alleged onset

date.

Plaintiff, who is right-handed, A.R. 432, testified that it

was an injury to her left wrist that caused her to stop working. A.R.

434. She described wrist pain that “goes clear down into the bone.” 

A.R. 435. She must rotate the wrist to alleviate stiffness. Id. Motrin,

800 mg., which is prescribed by Dr. Humphrey and which she takes three

times per day, helps to alleviate the pain. Id. Plaintiff has no problem

with her right wrist. A.R. 437, 440. She was unable to estimate how

many pounds she can carry in her right hand. Id. With her left hand,

however, she would spill a Styrofoam cup filled with water. Id.

Plaintiff drives a car two or three times per week. A.R. 433. 

She performs household chores, although she sometimes drops things. A.R.

438. She sometimes watches her grandchildren. Id.1

Dr. Humphrey has treated plaintiff for a variety of conditions

since 2006. A.R. 440. Plaintiff sees Dr. Humphrey approximately once

per month. Id.

Medical Evidence

Plaintiff suffered a work-related injury to her left wrist in

June 2006. X-rays taken in June and July 2006 were negative. A.R. 245-

1

Because plaintiff challenges the Commissioner’s decision only as it

relates to Dr. Humphrey’s opinion regarding plaintiff’s left wrist condition,

the Court will not discuss evidence unrelated to that issue.

3

Case: 2:10-cv-00996-EAS-NMK Doc #: 16 Filed: 02/13/12 Page: 3 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>
46. On July 28, 2006, Dr. Humphrey indicated that plaintiff could return

to light duty work (i.e., lifting no more than 10 pounds) effective July

31, 2006, but could return to regular duty three weeks thereafter. A.R.

356. During a September 2006 office visit, Dr. Humphrey noted continued

problems with the wrist. A.R. 268. An October 2006 EMG revealed evidence

of an early, mild left carpal tunnel syndrome. A.R. 266. A November 2006

CT scan of the left hand revealed no gross abnormalities or fractures. 

A.R. 243-44. On November 17, 2006, Dr. Humphrey indicated that plaintiff

“can return to work.” A.R. 268. At the November 29, 2006 office visit,

however, Dr. Humphrey noted that plaintiff was not working. A.R. 267. 

Dr. Humphrey prescribed at least two regimens of physical

therapy in late 2006. A.R. 240, 267. At her initial physical therapy

evaluation, plaintiff demonstrated decreased range of motion and strength

secondary to carpal tunnel syndrome. Id. Within several weeks, plaintiff

was demonstrating marked improvement in her range of motion and strength. 

A.R. 237. At the time of her discharge, plaintiff’s range of motion was

within normal limits and the left wrist flexors and extensors were 4+/5. 

A.R. 242. However, she had limited strength on lifting secondary to

pain. Id. 

On March 21, 2007, Dr. Humphrey noted that plaintiff was not

able to work. A.R. 263. On April 18, 2007, Dr. Humphrey noted that

plaintiff was restricted to light duty. Id.

On April 19, 2007, Bina Mehta, M.D., evaluated plaintiff’s

wrist injury in connection with her Worker’s Compensation claim. 

Plaintiff reported that physical therapy “helped reduce her pain a

little.” A.R. 229. Plaintiff characterized her wrist pain as constant,

a 9-10 on a 10-point scale. There is numbness at times. She wears a

brace for support. Id. Clinical examination of the left wrist revealed

no erythema, warmth or swelling. Range of motion was 25 degrees on

4

Case: 2:10-cv-00996-EAS-NMK Doc #: 16 Filed: 02/13/12 Page: 4 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>
extension, 70 degrees on flexion and 20 degrees on radial and ulnar

deviation. A.R. 230. Manual muscle testing was 5/5, 4/5 with flexion

and 5/5 in the left hand intrinsics. Sensation to touch was intact. Id. 

According to Dr. Mehta, plaintiff would benefit from continued use of

Motrin as needed, but that no further diagnostic or treatment services

should be considered or allowed. Id. Plaintiff “should be able to

perform work within the light- to medium-duty work capacity category.” 

A.R. 231. The doctor characterized plaintiff’s wrist sprain as “healed

by this point.” Id.

At virtually every office visit throughout 2007 - 2009, Dr.

Humphrey noted complaints of left wrist pain, for which he prescribed

Motrin, 800 mg. A.R. 247-63. On March 2, 2009, Dr. Humphrey diagnosed

chronic sprain and carpal tunnel syndrome of the left wrist. He opined

that plaintiff “has minimal use of her left hand,” which limits her to

sedentary work.2 A.R. 234. She can only occasionally lift up to 5 pounds

and has decreased strength and grasp of the left hand. Id.

Discussion

In his decision, the administrative law judge found that

plaintiff’s documented left wrist sprain and carpal tunnel syndrome were

not severe because her sprain did not last the required 12 months3 and her

carpal tunnel syndrome was only mild.4 A.R. 15. The administrative law

judge based this finding on Dr. Mehta’s April 2007 consultative

2

Under the Medical-Vocational guidelines, a claimant who, like

plaintiff, is of advanced age, with a limited education and with no

transferable skills, and who is limited to sedentary exertion is disabled. 

Rule 201.01, Pt. 404, Subpt. P, Appx.2.

3

The Social Security Act defines a “disability” as an “inability to

engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically

determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in

death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period

of not less than 12 months . . . “ 42 U.S.C. §423(d)(1)(A).

4

The Commissioner’s regulations define a “non-severe impairment” as one

that “does not significantly limit [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability

to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1521(a); 416.921(a).

5

Case: 2:10-cv-00996-EAS-NMK Doc #: 16 Filed: 02/13/12 Page: 5 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>
examination:

Even though [Dr. Mehta] indicated that the claimant

would benefit from continued treatment the claimant

is only being prescribed Motrin and was found to be

capable of performing at the light to medium

exertion. Further, treatment records thereafter do

no[t] show any findings/complaints to support the

claimant’s testimony.

Id. The administrative law judge rejected Dr. Humphrey’s March 2009

opinion that plaintiff is limited to sedentary work:

Although [] the claimant did undergo physical

therapy for a short period of time she had

improvement in her condition and there is no

evidence of any specific treatments for these

impairments on an ongoing basis.

A.R. 16. Plaintiff contends that the administrative law judge failed to

properly evaluate Dr. Humphrey’s March 2009 opinion. This Court agrees.

Opinions of treating physicians must be accorded controlling

weight if they are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and

laboratory diagnostic techniques” and not “inconsistent with the other

substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2);

416.927(d)(2). If the administrative law judge finds that either of

these criteria have not been met, he is then required to apply the

following factors in determining the weight to be given a treating

physician’s opinion: “The length of the treatment relationship and the

frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment

relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion

with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the treating

source. ...” Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir.

2004). In this regard, the administrative law judge is required to look

at the record as a whole to determine whether substantial evidence is

inconsistent with the treating physician’s assessment. See 20 C.F.R. §§

404.1527(d)(2),(4); 416.927(d)(2), (4). Moreover, an administrative law

judge must provide “good reasons” for discounting the opinions of a

6

Case: 2:10-cv-00996-EAS-NMK Doc #: 16 Filed: 02/13/12 Page: 6 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>
treating physician, i.e., reasons that are “sufficiently specific to make

clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the

treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.” 

Rogers v. Comm’r of Social Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 242 (6th Cir. 2007), citing

Soc. Sec. Rul. 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *5.

In the case presently before the Court, the administrative law

judge failed to expressly consider the factors required by Wilson. 

Moreover, in finding that treatment records after April 2007 “do no[t]

show any findings/complaints to support the claimant’s testimony,” A.R.

15, the administrative law judge mis-characterized the record and Dr.

Humphrey’s treatment notes, which consistently confirm plaintiff’s ongoing complaints of left wrist pain and its impact on her ability to

work. Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that the decision

of the administrative law judge lacks substantial support in the record.

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the decision of the

Commissioner be reversed and that the action be remanded to the

Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings.

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report

and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and

serve on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation,

specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part

thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28

U.S.C. §636(b)(1); F.R. Civ. P. 72(b). Response to objections must be

filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. 

F.R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to

the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de

novo review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the decision

of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas

7

Case: 2:10-cv-00996-EAS-NMK Doc #: 16 Filed: 02/13/12 Page: 7 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers,

Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States v. Walters, 

638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

 s/Norah McCann King 

 Norah McCann King

 United States Magistrate Judge

February 13, 2012

8

Case: 2:10-cv-00996-EAS-NMK Doc #: 16 Filed: 02/13/12 Page: 8 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>