Elrod v. Social Security Administration

Filing 13

ORDER affirming the final decision of the Commissioner, and dismissing Elrod's Complaint, with prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 11/13/2017. (kdr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
NORTHERN DIVISION
RONNIE C. ELROD
V.

PLAINTIFF
NO. 1:16CV00141-JTR

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,1
Acting Commissioner,
Social Security Administration

DEFENDANT
ORDER

I.

Introduction:
Plaintiff, Ronnie C. Elrod, applied for supplemental security income benefits

(“SSI”) on March 24, 2014, alleging his disability began on June 1, 2012. (Tr. at 10).
His claims were denied initially and upon reconsideration. Id. After conducting a
hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (AALJ@) denied his application. (Tr. at 20).
The Appeals Council denied his request for review. (Tr. at 1). The ALJ=s decision
now stands as the final decision of the Commissioner, and Elrod has requested
judicial review.
For the reasons stated below, the Court 2 affirms the decision of the
Commissioner.

Berryhill is now the Acting Commissioner of Social Security and is automatically substituted
as Defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).
1

2

The parties have consented in writing to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge.

II.

The Commissioner=s Decision:
This is an SSI claim only, which means that the relevant period begins on

March 24, 2014, the application date, and runs through the date of the hearing
decision, September 10, 2015. (Tr. at 11).
The ALJ found that Elrod had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since
the application date (Tr. at 13). At Step Two of the five-step analysis, the ALJ found
that Elrod has the following severe impairments: chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease; emphysema, degenerative disc disease, and arthritic pain in the hands and
hips. Id.
After finding that Elrod’s impairments did not meet or equal a listed
impairment (Tr. at 13), the ALJ determined that Elrod had the residual functional
capacity (“RFC”) to perform the full range of light work, except that: (1) he could
only occasionally bend, stoop, crouch, kneel, crawl, and balance; (2) he would not
be able to tolerate excessive exposure to dust, smoke, fumes, and other pulmonary
irritants; (3) he would be limited to frequent fingering and handling in the upper
extremities; and (4) he could perform work that is simple, routine, and repetitive
with supervision that is simple, direct, and concrete. (Tr. at 14). Next, the ALJ found
that Elrod was not capable of performing any past relevant work. (Tr. at 19). At Step
Five, the ALJ relied on the testimony of a Vocational Expert (“VE”) to find that,
2

based on Elrod’s age, education, work experience and RFC, jobs existed in
significant numbers in the national economy that he could perform at the light level
with the added limitations, specifically, cashier II and product assembler. (Tr. at 20).
Based on that Step Five determination, the ALJ held that Elrod was not disabled. Id.
III.

Discussion:
A.

Standard of Review

The Court=s function on review is to determine whether the Commissioner=s
decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and whether
it is based on legal error. Miller v. Colvin, 784 F.3d 472, 477 (8th Cir. 2015); see
also 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g). While Asubstantial evidence@ is that which a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, Asubstantial evidence on the
record as a whole@ requires a court to engage in a more scrutinizing analysis:
A[O]ur review is more than an examination of the record for the
existence of substantial evidence in support of the Commissioner=s
decision; we also take into account whatever in the record fairly
detracts from that decision.@ Reversal is not warranted, however,
Amerely because substantial evidence would have supported an
opposite decision.@
Reed v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 917, 920 (8th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).
It is not the task of this Court to review the evidence and make an independent
decision. Neither is it to reverse the decision of the ALJ because there is evidence in
the record which contradicts his findings. The test is whether there is substantial
3

evidence in the record as a whole which supports the decision of the ALJ. Miller,
784 F.3d. at 477.
B.

Elrod=s Arguments on Appeal

Elrod argues that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ=s decision to
deny benefits. He contends that the ALJ failed to fully develop the record and did
not assign an RFC reflective of all of Elrod’s limitations.
Elrod suggests that the ALJ should have ordered a consultative physical
examination based on his chronic pulmonary problems, emphysema, and back pain.
The ALJ has a duty to develop the record fully, even when the claimant is
represented by counsel, and must order a consultative examination if it is necessary
to make an informed decision. Dozier v. Heckler, 754 F.2d 274, 276 (8th Cir. 1985).
An examination is required, however, only if there is not sufficient medical evidence
in the record to determine whether a claimant is disabled. Martise v. Astrue, 641
F.3d 909, 926–27 (8th Cir. 2011).
Contrary to Elrod’s contention that there was no consultative physical
examination in this case, Veryl D. Hodges, D.O. (internal medicine), performed a
consultative evaluation at the agency’s request on April 27, 2015. (Tr. at 18, 48789). Upon physical exam, Elrod’s lungs were clear bilaterally, with no rales, rhonchi,
or wheezes. (Tr. at 489). He had good movement of shoulders, elbows, wrists, left
4

hip, both knees, and both ankles. Id. Although there was some pain on rotation both
internally and externally of the right hip, muscle strength was good in both upper
and lower extremities, and there was no evidence of edema or crepitus. Id. Elrod
could walk heel to toe and Romberg’s test was negative. Id. Dr. Hodges noted that a
heavy wallet was exacerbating Elrod’s hip pain. (Tr. at 488).
Dr. Hodges’s evaluation was consistent with the other evidence of record.
Elrod treated mostly at the emergency room, and failed to show longitudinal care
with a treating physician. An examination at the emergency room on February 20,
2014 showed normal breath sounds, clear auscultation, and no rales, rhonci, or
wheezing. (Tr. at 314). Another visit on March 15, 2014 showed some wheezing but
good air movement. (Tr. at 323). Elrod, an everyday smoker, was urged by doctors
to quit smoking; he said that smoking increased his shortness of breath and his
inhaler decreased it. (Tr. at 323-324, 329). Despite efforts to quit and his admission
that nicotine patches helped with his condition, he was still smoking at the time of
the hearing. (Tr. at 15, 51, 71). A failure to follow a recommended course of
treatment weighs against a claimant's credibility. Guilliams v. Barnhart, 393 F.3d
798, 802 (8th Cir. 2005)
Chest x-rays were normal in March and November 2014 (Tr. at 327, 406), and
at three doctors’ visits in July and August 2014, respiratory exams were normal. (Tr.
5

at 413, 418, 424). On September 4, 2014 and December 4, 2014, Elrod had no cough
or shortness of breath (Tr. at 343, 393). Although in October and November 2014
he was diagnosed with pneumonia, that apparently resolved because there was no
further evidence that Elrod sought treatment for respiratory problems. (Tr. at 403405). On April 27, 2015, pulmonologist Jeffrey Cohen, M.D., did a spirometry test
and found that an airway obstruction was significantly improved with a
bronchodilator. (Tr. at 476). Also, steroids resolved Elrod’s symptoms. (Tr. at 324).
Impairments that are controllable or amenable to treatment do not support a finding
of total disability. Mittlestedt v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 847, 852 (8th Cir. 2000).
The bout with pneumonia was an acute episode, and as noted above, clinical
respiratory exams were grossly normal. Objective tests showing mild to moderate
conditions do not support a finding of disability. Masterson v. Barnhart, 363 F.3d
731, 738-39 (8th Cir. 2004). Furthermore, Elrod’s failure to quit smoking in spite of
alleged respiratory problems undermines his claims of disability. See Kisling v.
Chater, 105 F.3d 1255, 1257 (8th Cir. 1997)(the ALJ correctly discounted
claimant’s credibility when claimant failed to stop smoking despite physician’s
orders).
As for Elrod’s back pain, numerous musculoskeletal exams were normal with
full range of motion, normal gait, and normal muscle tone. (Tr. at 309, 313-315, 323,
6

387, 413, 418, 424). On February 24, 2014, he had a positive straight-leg raise on
the right (Tr. at 309), but lumbar and thoracic x-rays in April 2015 were normal, and
a cervical x-ray showed only minimal degenerative changes, which were normal for
Elrod’s age. (Tr. at 480-483). Moreover, on July 29, 2014, when Elrod complained
of back pain, he admitted that in spite of lifting restrictions, he had been carrying his
young child over the past three days. (Tr. at 422). Again, non-compliance with
treatment is a legitimate consideration in evaluation of the validity of a claimant’s
disability. Holley v. Massanari, 253, F.3d 1088, 1092 (8th Cir. 2001). On that note,
Elrod also failed to follow the exercise regimen prescribed by his physical therapist
over the course of three sessions. (Tr. at 496-498). While Elrod suffered from some
impairments, the Court questions his motivation to improve his conditions as
suggested by his doctors.
As for the RFC, the opinion evidence from state-agency non-examining
medical consultants and from Dr. Hodges supported the limitations the ALJ
assigned. (Tr. at 90, 100). A claimant’s RFC represents the most he can do despite
the combined effects of all of his credible limitations and must be based on all
credible evidence. McCoy v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 605, 614 (8th Cir. 2011). The mild
objective findings, conservative treatment, positive response to treatment, and
failure to follow medical recommendations render Elrod’s complaints less than
7

credible; these factors undermine his argument for a more restrictive RFC. In
determining the claimant’s [RFC], the ALJ has a duty to establish, by competent
medical evidence, the physical and mental activity that the claimant can perform in
a work setting, after giving appropriate consideration to all of [his] impairments.
Ostronski v. Chater, 94 F.3d 413, 418 (8th Cir. 1996). The ALJ considered the
credible medical findings related to back pain and respiratory problems and assigned
appropriate limitations in the RFC.
IV.

Conclusion:
There is substantial evidence to support the Commissioner=s decision to deny

benefits. The ALJ did appropriately developed the record and the assigned RFC
incorporated all of Elrod’s credible limitations.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner
is AFFIRMED, and Elrod’s Complaint is DISMISSED, with prejudice.
DATED this 13th day of November, 2017.

___________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8