Turcinovic v. Berryhill

Background

Dzenita Turcinovic sought review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. She claimed benefits for the period from May 17, 2012, through March 31, 2018. An administrative law judge (ALJ) found severe impairments involving lumbar-spine degenerative disc disease after lumbar fusion, degenerative joint disease in both knees after right-knee surgery, and obesity. The ALJ determined that Turcinovic could perform the full range of light work and could perform her past work as a buyer’s assistant, as well as other jobs.

After the Appeals Council denied review, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The issue was whether the ALJ improperly gave more weight to the opinions of non-examining state consultants than to the opinions of Turcinovic’s treating physicians, Dr. Brendan Morley and Dr. Michael Krinsky.

Legal standard

The court reviewed the Commissioner’s decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). It could disturb the decision only if it lacked substantial evidence or applied improper legal standards. Because the treating physicians’ opinions conflicted with the state consultants’ opinions, the ALJ needed specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence to discount the treating physicians’ opinions.

Analysis

The ALJ gave Dr. Morley’s and Dr. Krinsky’s opinions little weight partly because Turcinovic’s treatment records documented improvement after surgery and appropriate conservative treatment. The court held that this was a specific and legitimate reason. The ALJ had discussed records showing improvement after Turcinovic’s March 2014 back surgery and June 2016 knee surgery, physical therapy, limited or intermittent use of pain medication, exercise on a stationary bicycle, and no consistent use of an assistive device. Although some records described continuing or worsening symptoms, the court held that those records did not undermine the reasonable conclusions the ALJ drew from the record as a whole.

The court also upheld the ALJ’s reliance on the non-examining physicians’ opinions in combination with the other evidence. The ALJ found those opinions consistent with the longitudinal treatment records, adequately reflective of Turcinovic’s combined functional capacity, and not contradicted by evidence submitted later. The court acknowledged that the opinions predated Turcinovic’s knee surgery and some later testing, but concluded that the ALJ adequately considered the later evidence and reasonably found no contradiction.

The court found two additional ALJ explanations inadequate. First, the ALJ’s statement that there was little evidence supporting the need to elevate Turcinovic’s legs was conclusory, and the ALJ incorrectly stated that she had not testified about needing to elevate them. Second, the ALJ did not adequately explain why Dr. Morley’s statements about Turcinovic’s limited ability to sit, stand, or walk were contradictory to his statement that she did not need to lie down or recline for pain. The court nevertheless held that both errors were harmless because the treatment records independently supported giving the treating physicians’ opinions little weight.

Disposition

The court concluded that the ALJ did not err in evaluating the medical evidence. It denied Turcinovic’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The action was dismissed with prejudice.