Granier v. Social Security Administration
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that pltf's appeal 2 is DENIED; affirming the Commissioner's final determination; judgment will be entered accordingly. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere on 6/26/13. (vjt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PATRICIA JEAN GRANIER
CASE NO.: 1:12CV00071 BD
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner,
Social Security Administration1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Patricia Jean Granier appeals the final decision of the Commissioner of
the Social Security Administration (the “Commissioner”) denying her claim for
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security
Act (the “Act”).2 For reasons set out below, the decision of the Commissioner is
On October 21, 2008, Ms. Granier protectively filed for SSI, alleging disability
beginning August 1, 1999, due to depression, anxiety, panic attacks, carpal tunnel
syndrome in both wrists, fibromyalgia, migraines, right leg pain, hypertension, stomach
pain, and heartburn. (Tr. 52, 144, 174) Ms. Granier’s claims were denied initially and
On February 14, 2013, Carolyn W. Colvin became the Acting Commissioner of
the Social Security Administration. She has been substituted for named Defendant
Michael J. Astrue under Fed.R.Civ.P. 25.
At the administrative hearing, Ms. Granier amended her disability onset date to
October 21, 2008. (Tr. 17, 47-48) This amendment was based on a previous denial of
benefits. (Tr. 43) Ms. Granier acknowledged that, as a result of the amendment, she did
not qualify for Disability Insurance benefits under Title II of the Act. (Tr. 48)
upon reconsideration. At her request, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) held a
hearing on June 8, 2010, at which Ms. Granier appeared with her attorney. (Tr. 40) At
the hearing, the ALJ heard testimony from Ms. Granier and a vocational expert (“VE”).
The ALJ issued a decision on September 7, 2010, finding that Ms. Granier was not
disabled under the Act. (Tr. 17-28) On June 14, 2012, the Appeals Council denied Ms.
Granier’s request for review, making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final
decision. (Tr. 1-5)
Ms. Granier was forty-three years old at the time of the hearing. (Tr. 45) She was
5' tall and weighed approximately 160 pounds. (Tr. 45) She had completed high school
and had received a life and health insurance agent certificate. (Tr. 45, 51)
Decision of the Administrative Law Judge
The ALJ followed the required sequential analysis to determine: (1) whether the
claimant was engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if not, whether the claimant had a
severe impairment; (3) if so, whether the impairment (or combination of impairments)
met or equaled a listed impairment; and (4) if not, whether the impairment (or
combination of impairments) prevented the claimant from performing past relevant work;
and (5) if so, whether the impairment (or combination of impairments) prevented the
claimant from performing any other jobs available in significant numbers in the national
economy. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)-(g) (2005).
The ALJ found that Ms. Granier had not engaged in substantial gainful activity
since her alleged disability onset date. (Tr. 19) And he found that Ms. Granier had the
following severe impairments: hypertension, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome post-release
surgery, fibromyalgia, a depressive disorder, and an anxiety disorder. (Tr. 19-22) The
ALJ also found, however, that Ms. Granier did not have an impairment or combination of
impairments meeting or equaling an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P,
Appendix 1 (20 C.F.R. § 416.926). (Tr. 22-23)
The ALJ determined that Ms. Granier had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”)
to perform light work, except she was limited to frequent, but not repetitive, use of her
hands; she would be limited to performing simple job tasks, with only incidental contact
with the public. (Tr. 23-26)
The ALJ determined that Ms. Granier’s RFC would preclude performance of her
past relevant jobs as a warehouse worker, municipal court clerk, data entry worker, and
sales clerk. (Tr. 26, 28) After considering VE testimony, the ALJ determined Ms.
Granier could perform the jobs of payroll or records clerk, and cleaner or maid. (Tr. 27)
The ALJ also noted that a finding of “not disabled” was appropriate under the framework
of Medical-Vocational Rule 202.21. (Tr. 27-28) Accordingly, the ALJ found that Ms.
Granier was not disabled. (Tr. 27)
Standard of Review
In reviewing the Commissioner’s decision, this Court must determine whether
there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the decision. Boettcher v.
Astrue, 652 F.3d 860, 863 (8th Cir. 2011); 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence is
“less than a preponderance, but sufficient for reasonable minds to find it adequate to
support the decision.” Id. (citing Guilliams v. Barnhart, 393 F.3d 798, 801 (8th Cir.
In reviewing the record as a whole, the Court must consider both evidence that
detracts from the Commissioner’s decision and evidence that supports the decision; but,
the decision cannot be reversed, “simply because some evidence may support the opposite
conclusion.” Id. (citing Pelkey v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 575, 578 (8th Cir. 2006)).
Plaintiff’s Arguments for Reversal
Ms. Granier claims the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence
because: (1) the ALJ failed to assess whether she met Impairment Listing 1.02 for her
inability to ambulate effectively; (2) the ALJ erred in his assessment of her treating
physician’s opinion that she was disabled; (3) the ALJ erred in his assessment of Ms.
Granier’s fibromyalgia and chronic pain; (4) the ALJ erred in his assessment of Ms.
Granier’s credibility; and (5) the ALJ presented an insufficient hypothetical to the VE.
A claimant has the burden of proving that an impairment or combination of
impairments meets or equals a Listing. Johnson v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 1067, 1070 (8th
Cir. 2004). “To meet a listing, an impairment must meet all of the listing’s specified
criteria.” Carlson v. Astrue, 604 F.3d 589, 593 (8th Cir. 2010) (citing references
Ms. Granier argues that she met the requirements of Impairment Listings 1.02 and
1.00(B)(2)(b) and (d) due to her alleged inability to ambulate effectively. (#10, pp. 1214) After reviewing her brief, and the entire 800-page record, this argument edges
perilously close to running afoul of Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
There is no medical evidence indicating that Ms. Granier could not ambulate effectively,
which relates to Listing 1.02. Ms. Granier herself testified that she could walk, though
with some difficulty. (Tr. 55-56) She was capable of carrying out activities of daily
living. (Tr. 248) While there is some evidence of pain, Ms. Granier has failed to meet
her burden to show that she met a single criterion for Listing 1.02, much less all criteria
for that Listing.
The other Listings cited by Ms. Granier, Listing 1.00(B)(2)(b) and (d), are
definition sections. See 42 U.S.C. APP.; 20 C.F.R. PT. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. It appears
doubtful that Ms. Granier’s attorney read these sections. Listing 1.00(B)(2)(b)(1) defines
ineffective ambulation as “having insufficient lower extremity functioning to permit
independent ambulation without the use of a hand-held assistive device that limits the
functioning of both upper extremities.” The very next section, 1.00(B)(2)(b)(2), gives
examples of ineffective ambulation as “the inability to walk without the use of a walker,
two crutches, or two canes . . . the inability to carry out routine ambulatory activities, such
as shopping . . . .”
Ms. Granier did not use crutches, a walker, a wheelchair, a cane, or any other
assistive device to walk. (Tr. 168) She testified that she could shop for groceries. (Tr.
Ms. Granier failed to support this argument with evidence in the record. By failing
to identify or support her Listing argument, Ms. Granier waived this claim. See Aulston
v. Astrue, 277 F. App'x 663, 664 (8th Cir. 2008)(declining to consider undeveloped
argument that claimant met the requirements of a particular Listing). Even if she had not
waive this argument, she failed to meet her burden of proving she met an Impairment
Treating Physician’s Opinion on Disability
Ms. Granier argues that the ALJ erred by not crediting her treating physician’s
opinion that she was disabled. Ms. Granier begins her argument by stating:
Dr. Moody and the other physicians who have followed Plaintiff for
a number of years [sic]. Dr. Moody stated Plaintiff was unable to work and
cervical spine prepared a report [sic]. Dr. Moody had imaging of Plaintiff’s
lumbar spine, cervical spine and right knee [sic]. The records reflect
Plaintiff has serious health conditions, in addition to Plaintiff’s back,
neuropathy, and right knee and he based his opinion on the medical records
(#10, at p. 15).
This section is barely intelligible. Ms. Granier indicates, however, that this
argument is based on Dr. Moody’s opinion that she was disabled. Ms. Granier states:
Dr. Moody found Plaintiff disabled. The Administrative Law Judge chose
to discredit Dr. Moody’s opinion. Based on what evidence? This opinion is
totally consistent with the objective evidence in this claim. (#10, at p. 15)
Ms. Granier also claims that Dr. Moody was qualified to make the judgment regarding
her disability. (#10, at p. 17)
This argument flies in the face of black-letter law. First, a physician’s opinion that
a claimant is disabled is not entitled to controlling weight. See House v. Astrue, 500 F.3d
741, 745 (8th Cir. 2007) (“A treating physician’s opinion that a claimant is disabled or
cannot be gainfully employed gets no deference because it invades the province of the
Commissioner to make the ultimate disability determination.”). Since at least 1991, the
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has flatly held that a treating physician is not
qualified to make the disability judgment. See Nelson v. Sullivan, 946 F.2d 1314, 1316
(8th Cir. 1991) (statements that a claimant could not be gainfully employed are not
medical opinions but opinions on the application of the statute, a task assigned solely to
the discretion of the Commissioner); see also Cruze v. Chater, 85 F.3d 1320, 1325 (8th
Cir. 1996) (same) and Krogmeier v. Barnhart, 294 F.3d 1019, 1023 (8th Cir. 2002)
(same). Ms. Granier in no way makes a good-faith argument for reversing existing law.
Instead, she makes inaccurate assertions that are contrary to the law.
Second, Ms. Granier makes the false statement that the ALJ discredited Dr.
Moody’s opinion. (#10, at pp. 5 and 15) She failed to cite the record, and this Court’s
thorough review has not unearthed any support for this assertion. (Tr. 17-28) Dr. Moody
apparently worked at Oak Park Medical. (Tr. 395) The ALJ noted regular treatment at
Oak Park Medical, but stated it was “unclear if the claimant is receiving treatment from a
physician.” (Tr. 26)
The ALJ did not “discredit” Dr. Moody’s opinion; if fact, he did not consider it at
all. Why? Dr. Moody’s opinion was rendered almost two months after the ALJ issued his
decision. (Tr. 27, 395) The ALJ did not – indeed could not – consider an opinion that did
Ms. Granier also claims that the ALJ “stated the state agency physician’s opinion
is accorded more weight than Plaintiff’s treating physician.” (#10, at p. 15) She fails to
cite to the record. This is undoubtedly because the ALJ never made the statement. (Tr.
17-28) Again, the opinion Ms. Granier leans on to support her point did not exist at the
time the ALJ issued his decision.
In the entire argument section there is not one single citation to the record. (#10,
pp. 15-18) This Court states in every scheduling Order, in bold type, for emphasis, that
“[a]ny argument in a brief that is not supported by relevant law and argument (with
citation to relevant portions of the transcript), will be considered to have been
waived by the briefing party.” (#9, at p. 2)(emphasis in original) But even if Ms.
Granier had not waived this argument, the argument fails because it is factually and
legally off base.
Residual Functional Capacity
Mr. Granier argues that the ALJ erred in assessing her fibromyalgia and chronic
pain. (#10, pp. 18-19) This is essentially an argument about RFC.
The ALJ bears the primary responsibility for assessing a claimant’s RFC.
Wildman v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 959, 969 (8th Cir. 2010). It is the claimant’s burden,
however, to prove RFC. Baldwin v. Barnhart, 349 F.3d 549, 556 (8th Cir. 2003).
In the argument section of her brief, Ms. Granier cites but one page of the record
for support. (#10, at p. 18) She refers to the citation to support her claim that the ALJ
discredited her fibromyalgia based on a cervical spine x-ray showing reverse
spondylolisthesis at C2-3, C3-4. (#10, p. 18) Oddly, the citation is to a form letter from
the ALJ advising Ms. Granier’s attorney to review the exhibit file in preparation for the
administrative hearing. (#10, at p. 18) (Tr. 33) Assuming this was a typographical error,
this Court attempted, without success, to find support for this assertion.3
It appears, as alleged by the Commissioner, that an X-ray showing reverse
spondylolisthesis at C2-3, C3-4 does not exist, at least in this record. (#11, at p. 27, fn.
It would have been error had the ALJ discredited Ms. Granier’s fibromyalgia based
on a cervical spine x-ray showing reverse spondylolisthesis at C2-3, C3-4. (#10, p. 18)
But in this record there are no x-rays showing reverse spondylolisthesis at C2-3, C3-4.
(Tr. 1-800) There are x-rays– taken more than a year after the ALJ issued his decision –
showing mild to moderate conditions at the C4-C7 cervical spine. (Tr. 450, 453) But
nothing close to what Ms. Granier has alleged.
Ms. Granier also complains about MRIs that the ALJ allegedly “threw out.” (#10,
at p. 7) True to course, Ms. Granier failed to cite the record in support of this allegation.
In fact, the only MRIs in the record were completed more than a year after the ALJ issued
his decision. (Tr. 451-452) And these MRIs concern the lumbar, not cervical, spine.
Regardless, the ALJ clearly considered Ms. Granier’s fibromyalgia. (Tr. 21-22,
25-26) He even found that it was a severe impairment. (Tr. 19) There is no merit to the
argument that the ALJ did not understand the disease of fibromyalgia. (#10, at p. 18)
Ms. Granier also argues that the ALJ erred by discrediting her mental impairments.
(#10, at p. 19) Nowhere in the entire argument section of her brief did Ms. Granier cite to
a single page of the record for support. (#10, pp. 19-20) Moreover, she failed to identify
a single subjective complaint that the ALJ discredited. And she failed to identify a single
mental impairment. Instead, a rote recitation focuses on pain. (#10, pp. 19-20)
Ms. Granier waived this argument by failing to support it. Regardless, the ALJ
gave sufficient reasons for discrediting Ms. Granier’s more extreme allegations. (Tr. 2426)
Vocational Expert Testimony
Ms. Granier next argues that the ALJ erred in presenting an insufficient
hypothetical to the VE. (#10, pp. 20-22) This argument is based on Ms. Granier’s
alleged mental limitations. (#10, p. 21)
Ms. Granier again failed to cite to a single page in the record to support this point
on appeal. While she mentions several alleged impairments, she failed to identify even
one limitation that the ALJ’s hypothetical failed to incorporate. As a result, Ms. Granier
waived this argument. Even if she had not waived this argument, the ALJ’s RFC
determination, which was the basis for the VE hypothetical, was consistent with the
findings of the only acceptable mental health professional to examine Ms. Granier. (Tr.
The brief submitted in support of Ms. Granier’s appeal is woefully deficient. The
Court, nonetheless, has given Ms. Granier every consideration and drawn every fair
inference, knowing that she was not the author of the brief. Undoubtedly, Ms. Granier
suffered from several severe impairments. While these impairments caused physical and
mental limitations, they did not render her disabled under the Act.
The Court has reviewed all of the evidence in the record. Despite her impairments,
there is sufficient evidence in the record as a whole to support the Commissioner’s
determination that Patricia Jean Granier retained the residual functional capacity to
perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the economy.
Accordingly, her appeal is DENIED, and the Clerk of Court is directed to close the
case, this 26th day of June, 2013.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?