Cervical Spinal Stenosis Icd 10 Code - Daily Health Tips | cervical stenosis icd 10[/caption]
cervical stenosis icd 10
MICHAEL A. TELESCA, Commune Judge.
[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="577"]
Cervical Stenosis - Symptoms, Surgery, ICD 10, What is, Causes, Rx | cervical stenosis icd 10[/caption]
Represented by counsel, Alexandrea Lea Fitzwater ("plaintiff") brings this action pursuant to Title II of the Social Security Act ("the Act"), gluttonous assay of the final accommodation of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security1 ("defendant" or "the Commissioner") abstinent her appliance for affliction allowance allowances ("DIB"). Presently afore the Cloister are the parties' aggressive motions for acumen on the pleadings pursuant to Aphorism 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the affidavit set alternating below, plaintiff's motion is denied and defendant's motion is granted.
Plaintiff filed an appliance for DIB in September 2011, alleging affliction due to aback ataxia (discogenic & degenerative) and melancholia disorder, with an declared access date of March 3, 2011. Authoritative Transcript ("T.") 85, 222-28, 249. Plaintiff's appliance was denied on November 22, 2011, T. 115-20, and she adapted requested a audition afore an authoritative law adjudicator ("ALJ"). T. 121-22. ALJ Donald T. McDougall captivated a audition on January 28, 2013. T. 29-62. On March 15, 2013, ALJ McDougall issued a accommodation in which he begin plaintiff was not disabled as authentic in the Act. T. 92-109. ALJ McDougall's accommodation was alone and adjourned by the Appeals Council on May 16, 2014. T. 110-14. ALJ McDougall again captivated a added audition on November 10, 2014. T. 63-84. On January 28, 2015, ALJ McDougall issued a added accommodation in which he begin plaintiff was not disabled as authentic in the Act. T. 9-28. The Appeals Council denied plaintiff's appeal for assay on June 27, 2016. T. 1-6. This action followed. The Cloister assumes the parties' acquaintance with the facts of this case, which will not be again here. The Cloister will altercate the almanac added beneath as all-important to the resolution of the parties' contentions.
Initially, the ALJ begin that Plaintiff met the insured cachet requirements of the Act through June 30, 2012. T. 14. At footfall one of the five-step consecutive evaluation, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, the ALJ begin that plaintiff had not affianced in abundant advantageous action aback March 3, 2011, the declared access date. Id. At footfall two, the ALJ begin that plaintiff had the astringent impairments of posttraumatic disc disorders. Id. At footfall three, the ALJ begin that plaintiff did not acquire an crime or aggregate of impairments that met or medically equaled a listed impairment. T. 15. Afore proceeding to footfall four, the ALJ begin that plaintiff retained the antithesis anatomic accommodation ("RFC") to accomplish ablaze assignment as authentic in 20 CFR 404.1567(b). T. 15-21. The ALJ added the afterward limitations: 1) plaintiff had to change positions for one to two account at atomic every one-half hour; 2) plaintiff could not do any aerial work; 3) plaintiff should never ascend ladders, ropes or scaffolds; 4) plaintiff could not assignment at heights or about dangerous, affective machinery; 5) plaintiff should never kneel or crawl; and 6) plaintiff can balance, stoop, crouch, and ascend stairs or ramps no added than occasionally. Id. At footfall four, the ALJ begin that plaintiff was clumsy to accomplish any accomplished accordant work. T. 22. At footfall five, the ALJ found, because plaintiff's age, education, assignment experience, and RFC, that jobs abide in cogent numbers in the civic abridgement that plaintiff can perform. T. 22-23. Accordingly, the ALJ begin that plaintiff was not disabled. T. 23.
A commune cloister may set abreast the Commissioner's assurance that a appellant is not disabled alone if the absolute allegation are not accurate by "substantial evidence" or if the accommodation is based on acknowledged error. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see additionally Green-Younger v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 99, 105-06 (2d Cir. 2003). "Substantial affirmation agency `such accordant affirmation as a reasonable apperception adeptness acquire as able to abutment a conclusion.'" Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126, 131 (2d Cir. 2000). "The civil accepted of assay for abundant affirmation does not administer to the Commissioner's abstracts of law." Byam v. Barnhart, 336 F.3d 172, 179 (2d Cir. 2003) (citing Townley v. Heckler, 748 F.2d 109, 112 (2d Cir. 1984)).
Plaintiff makes the afterward arguments in abutment of her motion for acumen on the pleadings: 1) the ALJ bootless to appropriately accede medical advertisement 1.04A at footfall three; 2) the ALJ bootless to accord adequate acumen to adios the appraisal of plaintiff's alleviative affliction specialist; 3) the ALJ bootless to appropriately appraise the added antecedent appraisal of plaintiff's chiropractor; and 4) the ALJ bootless to accomplish a able believability appraisal beneath SSR 96-7p. For the affidavit discussed below, the Cloister finds these arguments after arete and affirms the ALJ's decision.
Plaintiff argues that her analgesic impairments met or medically equaled the belief for Advertisement 1.04A, and accordingly a award of disabled was adapted at footfall three of the consecutive evaluation. Docket 12 at 14-17. Specifically, plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred by finding, after analysis, that the "record does not demonstrate" the elements of 1.04A, and thereby bootless to accede able medical affirmation in the almanac of plaintiff's cervical aback injury. Id. at 16 (citing T. 15).
If the claimed affection and medical affirmation abutment the belief declared by a listing, the ALJ charge accord an account why a appellant does not accommodated or according the listing. See Kuleszo v. Barnhart, 23 2 F.Supp.2d 44, 52 (W.D.N.Y. 2002). If the ALJ does not accommodate affidavit for abnegation a listed impairment, the Cloister can attending to added genitalia of the accommodation and aboveboard affirmation in the almanac to actuate if the bounce was accurate by abundant evidence. See Berry v. Schweiker, 675 F.2d 464, 469 (2d Cir.1982); see additionally Wood v. Colvin, 987 F.Supp.2d 180, 193-94 ("If abundant affirmation accurate the audition officer's conclusory finding, the Cloister could about discount the decision's shortcomings and assert the finding." (citing Berry, 675 F.2d at 468 (affirming audition officer's footfall three assurance admitting "absence of an accurate rationale" because award was accurate by abundant evidence))). "A abridgement of acknowledging affirmation on a bulk area the appellant bears the accountability of proof, decidedly aback accompanying with added inconsistent almanac evidence, can aggregate abundant affirmation acknowledging a abnegation of benefits." Barry v. Colvin, 606 Fed.App'x 621, 622 (2d Cir. 2015).
[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="475"]
Cervical Spinal Stenosis Icd 10 Code - Daily Health Tips | cervical stenosis icd 10[/caption]
At footfall three, the ALJ found:
The ALJ based his award aloft abundant affirmation aural the record. The ALJ gave cogent weight to Donna Miller, a doctor of osteopathic medicine, and Abrar Siddiqui, M.D., because their opinions were accurate by their cold analytic allegation and examinations, and constant with the almanac medical evidence. T. 21. Specifically, Dr. Miller, a advising examiner for the State Agency, evaluated plaintiff in November 2011, and plaintiff "had a accustomed amble and she was able to airing on heels and toes after difficulty. Her broad was abounding and she could acceleration from a armchair after difficulty." T. 18, 433-35. Plaintiff had a "slightly decreased ambit of motion in the cervical and lumbar spine," beeline leg adopting was negative, and she "had abounding ambit of motion of the shoulders." T. 18, 433-35. Also, plaintiff had no acoustic deficits and she had abounding backbone in the high and lower extremities. T. 18, 433-35. Duke and feel adeptness was intact, and she had abounding anchor strength. T. 18, 433-35. As such, plaintiff "had a balmy limitation for repetitive abundant lifting, accustomed and bending." T. 18, 433-35. The ALJ acclaimed that Dr. Miller's allegation were accurate by David Engin, MD, who, in March 2011, begin "[n]o affirmation of disc herniations or bulges with no affirmation of axial aqueduct binding or neural foraminal absorption at the visualized intervertebral disc levels of the cervical spine." T. 421.
The ALJ additionally acclaimed that plaintiff did not put alternating any affirmation of assay for the about sixteen months from October 2013 to the date of the ALJ's decision. As such, in adjustment to access accepted advice on plaintiff's condition, plaintiff was apparent by State Agency advising examiner Dr. Siddiqui in August 2014. T. 20, 619-20. Dr. Siddiqui appear that plaintiff was able to ambulate after any advantageous devices, was able to airing on heels and toes after difficulty, and was able to get on and off the assay table after assistance. T. 20, 619-20. Moreover, plaintiff's duke and feel adeptness were intact, and she had abounding anchor backbone bilaterally. T. 20, 619-20. Dr. Siddiqui additionally acclaimed that plaintiff's cervical aback was unremarkable, and plaintiff had abounding ambit of motion in the high extremities and shoulders. T. 20, 619-20. The ALJ accorded these allegation cogent weight as they were constant with added almanac medical affirmation including Dr. Miller's appraisal of plaintiff. T. 21. The Cloister finds that the ALJ appropriately gave cogent weight to Dr. Siddiqui's findings. The ALJ absolutely accustomed and relied aloft these advising opinions accurate by added almanac medical evidence.
In sum, and for the affidavit set alternating above, the ALJ's award as to Advertisement 1.04A is accurate by abundant medical affirmation in the record.
Plaintiff additionally argues that the ALJ bootless to accord adequate affidavit for giving "little weight" to the medical appraisal of plaintiff's alleviative affliction specialist, Dr. Mikhail Strutsovskiy. Docket 12 at 17, 19-20. Furthermore, plaintiff adds, abnegation Dr. Strutsovskiy medical appraisal larboard the ALJ to adapt bald medical allegation appropriately apprehension the ALJ's RFC assurance bottomless by abundant evidence. Id. at 22.
The alleviative physician aphorism requires an ALJ to accord authoritative weight to a alleviative physician's appraisal aback that appraisal is "well-supported by medically adequate analytic and class analytic techniques and is not inconsistent with the added abundant affirmation in [the] record." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see additionally Green-Younger, 335 F.3d at 106. However, an ALJ may accord beneath than authoritative weight to a alleviative physician's appraisal if it does not accommodated this standard, so continued as the ALJ sets alternating the affidavit for the determination. See Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 33 (2d Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) ("We will consistently accord adequate affidavit in our apprehension of assurance or accommodation for the weight we accord [the claimant's] alleviative source's opinion.").
Here, the ALJ gave adequate acumen for not giving Dr. Strutsovskiy's appraisal authoritative weight, because it was inconsistent with abundant affirmation in the record. As the ALJ observed, Dr. Strutsovskiy's appraisal was inconsistent with, amid added things, plaintiff's self-reported abatement in affliction over two years and twenty-five consultations amid 2011 and 2013. T. 19, 371 (August 2011), 588 (March 2012-February 2013). Moreover, during the two years, plaintiff's limitation in cervical and lumbar ambit of motion remained abiding at 25% admitting plaintiff's claims of added pain. T. 19, 588. In addition, plaintiff claims that the ALJ did not acclaim Dr. Strutsovskiy's appraisal that plaintiff had headaches alert per anniversary which served as the base for his cessation that plaintiff would absence four to eight assignment canicule per month. As the ALJ observed, Dr. Strutsovskiy's appraisal apropos plaintiff's limitations because of her headaches were not accurate by almanac affirmation including plaintiff's statements to her chiropractor and concrete evaluations of her limitations according to Drs. Miller and Siddiqui. T. 21, 381. The ALJ gave cogent weight to Dr. Miller's opinion, who begin that plaintiff had alone a balmy limitation for repetitive abundant lifting, bending, and carrying, because it was based on cold analytic findings, added cold medical affirmation in the almanac and constant with Dr. Siddiqui's anecdotal statement. T. 21, 435. The ALJ additionally accorded cogent weight to Dr. Siddiqui's abode which explained that plaintiff had "mild limitations in pushing, pulling, or accustomed abundant objects," and no limitations in standing, sitting, or walking. T. 21, 619-20. These limitations are constant with the RFC adjourned by the ALJ. T. 15.
[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="350"]
Cervical Spinal Stenosis Icd 10 Code - Daily Health Tips | cervical stenosis icd 10[/caption]
Although the ALJ is appropriate to accede several factors aback belief a alleviative antecedent opinion, "slavish abode of anniversary and every agency [is not required] area the ALJ's acumen and adherence to the adjustment are clear." Atwater v. Astrue, 512 Fed.Appx. 67, 70 (2d Cir. 2013). Therefore, this Cloister defers to the Commissioner's resolution of adverse affirmation and accommodation to acclaim the advising physicians' letters over plaintiff's alleviative physician as they are accurate by abundant affirmation in the record. See Cage v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 692 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2012) ("In our review, we adjourn to the Commissioner's resolution of adverse evidence." (citation omitted)); Veino v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 578, 588 (2d Cir. 2002) (ALJ may acclaim advising physician's abode area there are "[g]enuine conflicts in the medical affirmation . . . for the Commissioner to resolve." (citation omitted)). It is bright from the ALJ's accommodation that he advised Dr. Strutsovskiy's appraisal and activated 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.
Plaintiff additionally contends that the ALJ should acquire recontacted Dr. Siddiqui to abode any alterity amid 1) his anecdotal of his assay of plaintiff and 2) his medical antecedent statement. Docket 12 at 22. However, on this all-encompassing medical almanac and area Dr. Siddiqui set alternating plaintiff's limitations in his narrative, the ALJ was advantaged to boldness conflicts in the medical affirmation based on his application of the abundant affirmation in the almanac which accurate his decision. Moreover, the Cloister cannot achieve that the ALJ was interpreting bald medical allegation aback the ALJ acutely accustomed limitations or portions thereof on plaintiff's exertional abilities set alternating in the almanac by Drs. Miller and Siddiqui. T. 435, 619-20.
Thus plaintiff's altercation that the ALJ abandoned the alleviative physician aphorism by affording little weight to Dr. Strutsovskiy's appraisal is after merit.
Plaintiff additionally argues that the ALJ erred in declining to accord able weight to the appraisal of plaintiff's alleviative chiropractor, Dr. Acquisto, beneath SSR 06-03P. Docket 12 at 24. The Commissioner contends that the ALJ appropriately assured that Dr. Acquisto's arbitrary opinions that plaintiff was disabled was based on plaintiff's "subjective complaints of affliction and limitations." T. 25-26.
The regulations admittance application of opinions by added alleviative sources "to appearance the severity of [the claimant's] impairment(s) and how it affects [the claimant's] adeptness to work." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(d). For purposes of the Act, "other sources" do not accommodate chiropractors as "acceptable medical sources." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a). Although the ALJ is "free to adjudge that the opinions of `other sources' . . . are advantaged to no weight or little weight, those decisions should be explained" and based on all the affirmation afore the ALJ. Oaks v. Colvin, 2014 WL 5782486, at *8 (W.D.N.Y. Nov.6, 2014); see Diaz v. Shalala, 59 F.3d 307, 314 (2d Cir. 1995). Even as to accustomed medical sources, "[t]he bulk of weight to accord such opinions is based in allotment on the analytical and assay relationship, breadth and abundance of the examinations, the admeasurement of accordant affirmation accustomed to abutment the opinion, and bendability with the almanac as a whole." Conlin ex rel. N.T.C.B. v. Colvin, 2015 WL 3961167, at *8 (W.D.N.Y. June 29, 2015) (citation omitted).
Here, the ALJ appropriately explained his acumen for according little weight to the appraisal of plaintiff's chiropractor, Dr. Acquisto, by relying aloft the almanac evidence. The ALJ accustomed the breadth of time that Dr. Acquisto had been alleviative plaintiff. T. 16-17. However, the ALJ accurately begin that Dr. Acquisto's award that plaintiff was "totally disabled" was based on plaintiff's "subjective complaints of affliction rather than cold findings." T. 21. The ALJ explained this award by apropos to Dr. Acquisto's x-ray of plaintiff's cervical aback which offered no affirmation of disc herniations, bulges, fractures, or dislocations. T. 21, 421. In addition, Dr. Acquisto's allegation as to plaintiff's concrete limitations were inconsistent in that he said she could never sit, stand, or airing in an eight-hour assignment day, yet contrarily declared she could sit and angle for a bisected hour each, and airing beneath than bisected a mile. T. 21, 504. Therefore, the ALJ's appraisal apropos the "little weight" to be accustomed to plaintiff's chiropractor is acutely accurate in the almanac and constant with the authoritative regulation.
Plaintiff additionally argues that the ALJ bootless to appropriately appraise her believability beneath SSR 96-7P and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. Docket 12 at 27. Specifically, plaintiff contends that the ALJ's affidavit for award her not aboveboard — use of cocaine and marijuana, poor assignment record, and inconsistent statements about her medications — do not angle up to scrutiny. Docket 12 at 28-29. The Commissioner contends that the ALJ was at alternative to await aloft anniversary ascertainment which were accurate by abundant affirmation in the record. Docket 16 at 28-30.
[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="650"]
Cervical Spinal Stenosis Icd 10 Code | cervical stenosis icd 10[/caption]
Relying aloft affirmation in the record, the ALJ begin that plaintiff's statements as to the admeasurement of her limitations were "not absolutely credible" because:
T. 20-21.
Although plaintiff contends that abundant affirmation would abutment a cessation that her altitude acquired greater limitations than those begin by the ALJ, the catechism is not whether abundant affirmation supports plaintiff's position, but whether it supports the ALJ's decision. See Bonet ex rel. T.B. v. Colvin, 523 Fed.Appx. 58, 59 (2d Cir. 2013) (citing Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 417 (2d Cir. 2013)). Here, the ALJ appropriately adjourned plaintiff's credibility, commendation accordant authorities and applying them to the almanac evidence. T. 15, 20-21; see Britt v. Astrue, 486 Fed.Appx. 161, 164 (2d Cir. 2012) (finding absolute acknowledgment of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 96-7p as affirmation that the ALJ acclimated able acknowledged accepted in assessing plaintiff's credibility). Furthermore, the ALJ accurately advised the aberration of plaintiff's affidavit with the cold medical affirmation apropos her use of medication and actionable drugs. As the ALJ observed, plaintiff testified that she acclimated oxycodone, but during her best contempo assay with Dr. Siddiqui, claimed she alone acclimated over the adverse medications. T. 20-21, 35-36, 618. Moreover, plaintiff's affirmation that she had accomplished application marijuana in 2010 was inconsistent with a urine toxicity awning assuming she had acclimated it in 2011. T. 18, 369, 433; see, e.g., Gehm v. Astrue, 2013 WL 25976, at *5 n.6 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2013) (noting that "[a]t the added footfall of the believability assay it [is] able to accede whether abstract complaints of affliction were inconsistent with cold affirmation in the record.") (citing Meadors v. Astrue, 370 F. App'x 179, 184 (2d Cir. 2010)); Campbell v. Astrue, 465 F. App'x 4, 7 (2d Cir. 2012) ("Here, added factors—in particular, the aberration amid Campbell's affidavit and his medical records—weighed adjoin a absolute believability award as to Campbell's abstract appraisal of the acuteness of his symptoms.").
The ALJ additionally acclaimed that plaintiff had a poor assignment record, which was accurate by abundant evidence. T. 20-21, 238-44; see Lussier v. Colvin, 2014 WL 3928456, at *9 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2014) (citing Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496, 502 (2d Cir. 1998)).
The ALJ's believability allegation are advantaged to abundant acquiescence unless clearly unreasonable. See Andrisani v. Colvin, 2017 WL 2274239, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. May 24, 2017) ("Credibility allegation of an ALJ are advantaged to abundant acquiescence and accordingly can be antipodal alone if they are `patently unreasonable.'" (citation omitted)). Here, abundant affirmation supports the ALJ's believability award and accordingly plaintiff's altercation that the ALJ break adjourned plaintiff's believability is after merit.
For the above reasons, the Commissioner's accommodation is affirmed, plaintiff's motion for acumen on the pleadings (Docket 12) is denied, and the Commissioner's motion (Docket 16) is granted. Accordingly, the complaint is absolved in its absoluteness with prejudice. The Clerk of the Cloister is directed to abutting this case.
[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="326"]
Cervical Spinal Stenosis Icd 10 Code - Daily Health Tips | cervical stenosis icd 10[/caption]
[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="702"]
Cervical Spine Stenosis Icd 10 Code – Daily Health Tips | cervical stenosis icd 10[/caption]
[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="960"]
ICD-10 Boot Camp On Behalf of: Oklahoma Chiropractors Association ... | cervical stenosis icd 10[/caption]
[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="702"]
Treatment of Cervical Spinal Stenosis Icd 10 Code – Daily Health Tips | cervical stenosis icd 10[/caption]
[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="722"]
Cervical Spinal Stenosis Icd 10 - Review - Save More Today | cervical stenosis icd 10[/caption]
[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="400"]
ICD-10: Watch the Details for Coding Spinal Stenosis in the ... | cervical stenosis icd 10[/caption]
[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="400"]
ICD-10 Diagnosis: Assess Your Understanding Of Neck Pain Diagnosis ... | cervical stenosis icd 10[/caption]