Source: http://ks.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180425_0000632.DKS.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 06:42:31+00:00

Document:
Plaintiff seeks review of a decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security (hereinafter Commissioner) denying Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) pursuant to sections 216(i) and 223 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i) and 423 (hereinafter the Act). Finding no error in the Commissioner's final decision, the court ORDERS that judgment shall be entered pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) AFFIRMING that decision.
Plaintiff argues that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred when he accorded “the treating source opinion substantial weight, but then failed to include the limitations that opinion suggested.” (Pl. Br. 1) (issue 1). The court does not agree.
the ALJ gave “significant weight” to opinions from Dr. Shah, [Ms.] Haugen's treating psychiatrist, Dr. Berg, an examining source, and Dr. R. E. Schulman, a non-examining source. (Tr. at 20). However, the ALJ failed to include many of the limitations within Dr. Shah's opinion. This omission demands a remand because the ALJ is responsible for formulating an RFC that include[s] all of Haugen's credible limitations, especially those more restrictive than what he assessed.
(Pl. Br. 8). She points to two limitations allegedly opined by Dr. Shah (that Plaintiff would be off task 10 percent of a workday and that she “would be unable to perform activities within a schedule, maintain regular attendance, and be punctual up to thirty percent of the time”) and argues that despite according significant weight to Dr. Shah's opinion and finding the opinion well supported and consistent with the evidence, he erred in failing to include these limitations in the RFC assessed. Id. at 8-9 (citing R. 579, 580). She argues that the ALJ explicitly found the opinion “well-supported” and “implicitly found the opinion consistent with other substantial evidence when he found it consistent with Dr. Berg's findings and other treatment notes.” Id. at 9. Consequently, she concludes that “the ALJ had no choice but to give controlling weight to Dr. Shah's opinion, ” and Dr. Shah's opinion “trumps” any differing opinion. Id. at 9-10. Plaintiff cites opinions from several courts of this District for the proposition that when an ALJ accords weight to a medical source opinion, does not accept the entire opinion, and fails to explain why he did not accept portions of the opinion, he has erred. (Pl. Br. 10-11) (citing Frakes v. Berryhill, CV 16-1066-JWL, 2017 WL 1354863, at *4 (D. Kan. Apr. 13, 2017); James v. Colvin, No. 13-1387-JWL, 2014 WL 6610308 (D. Kan. Nov. 20, 2014); Schmitt v. Colvin, No. 13-1129-SAC, 2014 WL 3519091, at *6-7 (D. Kan. July 16, 2014); Henderson v. Astrue, No. 11-2645-JWL, 2013 WL 141610, at *4 (D. Kan. Jan. 11, 2013); and Lodwick v. Astrue, No. 10-1394-SAC, 2011 WL 6253799, at *4 (D. Kan. Dec. 13, 2011)).

References: § 405
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.