Opinion ID: 2971831
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Plaintiff’s Substantive Claims

Text: As to Robinson’s substantive claims, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ improperly rejected the medical opinion and limitations set forth by Dr. King, Robinson’s treating physician. Robinson argues that the ALJ erred in relying upon the assessment of Dr. Rapier who completed his independent medical evaluation on August 22, 1994, and on one-time consultative examiners Drs. Zadeh, and Beard. The ALJ concluded that Dr. King’s findings were inconsistent with those of the consultative examiners in that Dr. King opined that Robinson was limited to the sedentary range of exertion, while Drs. Zadeh and Beard found milder limitations, suggesting an ability to perform medium exertion. The ALJ also concluded that Dr. King had taken undue consideration of Robinson’s sleep problems in assessing that Robinson’s non-restorative sleep pattern was causing him additional pain. Finally, the ALJ found that Dr. King’s finding of radiculopathy was inconsistent with the reports of the other doctors. Accordingly, the ALJ rejected Dr. King’s assessment of Robinson’s impairments, and instead relied upon Dr. Rapier’s assessment of Plaintiff’s abilities. The ALJ asked the vocational 11 expert (“VE”) whether a person with Plaintiff’s age, education, and work experience could perform any jobs if he were limited to light exertion, and had the following non-exertional impairments: is limited to lifting twenty pounds occasionally, ten pounds frequently; has the ability to sit or stand for no more than one hour at a time, but less than six hours out of an eighthour day; can never climb a ladder, rope, or scaffold; can occasionally climb, balance, stoop, crouch, crawl, or kneel; can do no over-the-shoulder lifting and has limited ability to push and pull with his upper extremities; must avoid unprotected heights, moving machinery, and vibratory tools; and may not engage in forward twisting and turning at the waist. The VE found that there were a significant number of jobs available in the regional and national economy that a person with the aforementioned limitations could perform. In Dr. King’s October 9, 1998 assessment of Robinson’s physical ability to do workrelated activities, he opined that Robinson could stand and walk a total of less than three hours in an eight-hour workday, and only thirty minutes without interruption. Dr. King also assessed that Robinson could spend less than three hours of an eight-hour workday sitting, and that he could sit for only thirty minutes without interruption. When asked, the VE concluded that an individual with the limitations presented by Dr. King could not be competitively employed in any job. Robinson makes several arguments against the ALJ’s reliance on Dr. Rapier’s assessment of Robinson’s ability to engage in work-related activities. First, Plaintiff argued below that Dr. Rapier’s testimony regarding Robinson’s sitting and standing restrictions were ambiguous. Plaintiff argued to the district court that the doctor was really indicating that Robinson could not stand or sit for more than six hours total in an eight-hour day, rather than the ALJ’s 12 interpretation of six hours standing and six hours sitting. The District Court concluded that Dr. Rapier’s statement could be interpreted in more than one way, and that if there was error in the ALJ’s interpretation, then it was harmless because the ALJ could have relied on Dr. Tansey’s opinion that Plaintiff was capable of sedentary lifting and sitting for up to eight hours a day, with non-exertional restrictions consistent with the hypothetical question posed to the VE. On appeal, Plaintiff asserts that the district court’s finding that any error, if it existed, was harmless is incorrect because Dr. Tansey’s review was secured in violation of Robinson’s due process rights. We concluded above that Plaintiff was given notice each time the ALJ sought to include additional post-hearing evidence into the record, and was also given an opportunity to respond on both occasions. As we opined that there was no reversible error in the ALJ’s securing post-hearing information for Drs. Tansey and Beard, we now find Plaintiff’s argument without merit. Dr. Tansey assessed that “prolonged standing for more than 30-40 minutes or walking more than one hour would be painful” but found that Robinson could sit for between six and eight hours total in an eight-hour workday, and up to eight hours without interruption. Thus, the ALJ’s finding that Robinson’s limitations were less severe than reported by Dr. King is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Plaintiff also asserts that Dr. King’s opinion is consistent with the opinions of other doctors who are specialists, and should have been accorded deference. The opinions of treating physicians are accorded great weight if supported by sufficient clinical findings. Cutlip v. Secretary of H.H.S., 25 F.3d 284 (6th Cir. 1994); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). A treating physician’s opinion may be rejected if that opinion is unsupportable or contrary to objective medical evidence. More weight is generally given to a specialist whose opinion is within his or 13 her specialty, as compared to the opinion of a physician who is not a specialist. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(5). None of the consultative examiners found any evidence of nerve root impingement, which was the primary factor that Dr. King gave to support his assessment. There was also a lack of evidence of significant nerve root compression or radiculopathy in Dr. Dempsey’s treatment records. Dr. Tchou’s records reflect that the MRI of Robinson’s cervical spine showed no evidence of nerve root compression, nor did the other test reveal evidence of lumbar radiculopathy or lower extremity neuropathy. Dr. Tansey also concluded that “the electrodiagnostic studies reveal no evidence of a lumbar radiculopathy or lower left leg neuropathy.” Additionally, Dr. Tansey reported bulging at the C3-C4 level without nerve root compression. Thus, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s determination that Dr. King’s assessment was inconsistent with the record. We find no error, therefore, in the decision not to accord special deference to his opinion. While there are limitations on Plaintiff’s ability to move, Drs. Dempsey, Tchou, Block, and Beard did not impose any work restrictions. The VE considered Plaintiff’s past relevant work as a route salesman to be semi-skilled work. Plaintiff’s borderline intelligence did not interfere with his ability to perform previous jobs. Thus, under Daniels, Plaintiff’s proof of performing in the borderline range of intellectual functioning does not rise to the level of a serious mental impairment. Thus, the ALJ could reasonably conclude that Plaintiff could perform some sedentary work.