2015 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-9-2015

Dennis Hoyman v. Commissioner Social Security

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015

This April is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University

School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2015 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of

Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Dennis Hoyman v. Commissioner Social Security" (2015). 2015 Decisions. Paper 355.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015/355
 NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

_____________ 

No. 14-3653 

_____________ 

DENNIS HOYMAN, 

 Appellant 

v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Commissioner of Social Security 

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Pennsylvania 

(District Court No.: 2-13-cv-00432) 

District Judge: Honorable Cathy Bissoon 

 

Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) 

On March 20, 2015 

Before: MCKEE, Chief Judge, RENDELL, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges 

(Opinion filed: April 9, 2015) 

 
2 

O P I N I O N*

 

RENDELL, Circuit Judge: 

Dennis Hoyman appeals his denial of supplemental security income benefits 

(“SSI”). Hoyman raises three issues on appeal: (1) that the Administrative Law Judge 

(“ALJ”) improperly discounted his primary doctor’s opinion and substituted his lay 

opinion for hers; (2) that the ALJ improperly failed to consider Hoyman’s obesity in his 

residual functional capacity (“RFC”) determination; and (3) that the ALJ erred in 

assessing Hoyman’s credibility. We will affirm the District Court’s Order affirming the 

ALJ’s ruling. 

I. Background 

Hoyman has applied for SSI. His primary doctor, Dr. Jennifer Sepp, filled out a 

medical assessment form, dated August 25, 2011, which claims that Hoyman suffers 

from hyperparathyroidism, depression, myalgia, hypertension, GERD, inter alia. It states 

that he has memory problems, chronic fatigue, weight change, anthralgia, myalgia, dry 

skin, weakness, anxiety, and nausea, and that his symptoms constantly interfere with his 

ability to work. However, other doctors have offered contradictory opinions about 

Hoyman’s health and prognosis. Specifically, after Hoyman underwent a surgical 

resectioning of his right superior parathyroid gland, Dr. Yip reported that Hoyman’s 

intraoperative parathyroid hormone levels had begun to normalize, indicating that 

 

*

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent. 
3 

Hoyman’s thyroid condition was cured. Similarly, Dr. Brooks found Hoyman’s muscle 

strength to be in a better condition than Dr. Sepp had indicated, and Dr. Detore found that 

Hoyman’s mental health was in a better condition than she had indicated. 

The ALJ, after considering all relevant evidence, denied Hoyman’s SSI 

application. The District Court affirmed, and Hoyman has appealed. 

II. Analysis1

A. Dr. Sepp’s Opinion 

In Plummer, we decided that the “ALJ may reject a treating physician’s opinion 

outright only on the basis of contradictory medical evidence, but may afford a treating 

physician’s opinion more or less weight depending upon the extent to which supporting 

explanations are provided.” Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 429 (3d Cir. 1999). Like 

here, the claimant in Plummer contended that the ALJ’s decision was not supported by 

substantial evidence “because the ALJ improperly substituted her own judgment in place 

of the medical evidence.” Id. There, we found substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s 

discounting of the treating physician’s opinion because the physician’s answers about the 

extent and severity of the claimant’s disability were contradicted both by his own fuller 

medical report and by the reports of other doctors who found that the claimant suffered 

“no significant functional limitations” and was improving. Id. at 430-31. 

 

1

 Congress provides for judicial review of the Commissioner’s decisions to deny a 

claimant’s application for disability benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Our role is identical to 

that of the District Court—namely, to determine whether there is substantial evidence to 

support the Commissioner’s decision. Adorno v. Shalala, 40 F.3d 43, 46 (3d Cir. 1994). 
4 

Here, the ALJ assigned Dr. Sepp’s August 2011 medical assessment form little 

weight because “he found it to be inconsistent with Dr. Sepp’s own notes, [Hoyman’s] 

activities of daily living, and the clinical and objective evidence in the record.” (App. 

14.) Although Dr. Sepp’s form indicates that Hoyman “suffers from muscle pain and 

weakness and can only occasionally lift items up to ten pounds,” “her treatment notes 

contain no objective findings to substantiate these opinions and, in fact, Dr. Brooks found 

[Hoyman’s] muscle strength to be intact in January 2011.” (App. 15.) Similarly, 

although Dr. Sepp stated that Hoyman’s symptoms would “constantly interfere with his 

powers of attention and concentration and would also preclude him from interacting 

closely with others,” her “treatment notes indicate that [Hoyman] was doing a lot better 

with his depression in December 2010 and, as of February 2011, was pleasant, very 

engaging, witty, and looking well.” (App. 15-16.) Although Dr. Sepp stated that 

Hoyman suffered from “impaired concentration, memory, attention and ability to interact 

with others,” these findings are contradicted by Dr. Detore. (App. 16.) Although Dr. 

Sepp stated that Hoyman’s “fatigue, drowsiness and sedation would necessitate extended 

breaks and would preclude [him] from sitting or standing even two hours a day or 

walking more than one city block,” her notes from April 2011 state that Hoyman was 

“feeling a lot better and was doing things around his shop, including a lot of planting.” 

(Id.) Accordingly, this is hardly a case where the ALJ rejected a medical opinion without 

any basis.2

 Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination. 

 

2 Cf. Ferguson v. Schweiker, 765 F.2d 31, 37 (3d Cir. 1985) (holding that the ALJ acted 

improperly because no medical evidence supported the ALJ’s rejection of the doctor’s 
5 

B. The Obesity Issue 

Hoyman argues that the ALJ failed to consider Hoyman’s obesity, but the ALJ 

explicitly considered Hoyman’s obesity at the appropriate step in assessing his RFC. The 

Social Security Administration has promulgated regulations incorporating a five-step 

evaluation process for determining whether a claimant is under a disability. See 

generally 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Hoyman relies upon a case in which the ALJ mentioned 

the claimant’s obesity at an earlier step, but then did not consider it at a subsequent step. 

See Diaz v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 577 F.3d 500, 504-05 (3d Cir. 2009). That is not what 

occurred here. Here, the ALJ explicitly contemplated Hoyman’s obesity at the 

appropriate step (i.e., when assessing Hoyman’s RFC). Accordingly, Hoyman’s 

argument fails. 

C. Hoyman’s Credibility 

Hoyman has failed to meet his heavy burden to establish that the ALJ’s credibility 

determination should be reversed. The ALJ found that Hoyman’s “statements concerning 

the intensity, duration, and limiting effects of [his] symptoms are not entirely credible 

and are inconsistent with the totality of the evidence.” (App. 36.) “The credibility 

determinations of an administrative judge are virtually unreviewable on appeal.” Bieber 

v. Dep’t of the Army, 287 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The evidence from 

Hoyman’s doctors and the evidence regarding his daily activities—such as selling plants, 

building snowmen, washing dishes, doing laundry, gardening, planting, grocery 

 

opinion). 
6 

shopping, visiting his relative, and taking care of cats—support the ALJ’s finding with 

respect to Hoyman’s credibility. 

III. Conclusion 

Accordingly, we will affirm.