Donna M. F. v. Berryhill

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          RENEE HARRIS TOLIVER, UNK£Er>STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 18, is DENIED, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 19, is GRANTED, and the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED

         I.

         BACKGROUND

         A. Procedural History

         Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner denying her application for disability benefits under the Social Security Act (“the Act”). Doc. 1 at 1. After Plaintiff's claims were denied at all administrative levels, she appealed to this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Doc. 18-1 at 1-2.

         B. Factual Background

         Plaintiff filed for benefits in September 2015 claiming that she became disabled in October 2014 due to her uncontrolled diabetes, neuropathy, collagenous colitis, arthritis, and vision impairment. Doc. 1 at 1-2; 18-1 at 1, 6. She was 49 years old on her alleged disability onset date. Doc. 13-1 at 27.

         1. Diabetes and Collagenous Colitis

         During a medical visit in August 2015, Plaintiff requested refills for diabetes medication she had not taken in two years and was diagnosed with type II, uncontrolled diabetes. Doc. 13-1 at 378, 381. In September 2015, Plaintiff's insulin and gabapentin doses were increased, and she received diet and nutrition counseling. Doc. 13-1 at 311. Plaintiff exhibited normal bowel sounds. Doc. 13-1 at 310.

         Plaintiff later suffered from a three-month bout of diarrhea and vomiting, likely the result of hyperglycemia, that resulted in hospitalizations in November and December of 2015. Doc. 13-1 at 343, 360. During a January 24, 2017 hospitalization, Plaintiff was again hyperglycemic and not compliant with taking her medication. Doc. 13-1 at 758. Plaintiff's blood glucose level upon admission was 863. Doc. 13-1 at 766.

         2. Ocular

         On November 16, 2015, Plaintiff underwent a visual consultative examination with Dr. Celico. Doc. 13-1 at 334-35. Dr. Celico noted that Plaintiff had no neovascular disease and normal visual field in both eyes. Doc. 13-1 at 335. Plaintiff's vision for distance was 20/40 in her right eye and 20/80 in her left eye with best correction. Doc. 13-1 at 334. Plaintiff's near vision was 20/200 with her right eye and 20/250 with her left eye with best correction. Doc. 13-1 at 334. Dr. Celico predicted Plaintiff's future health would be fair to good. Doc. 13-1 at 335. Plaintiff was not taking any ocular medications. Doc. 13-1 at 479.

         3. ...