Carlsen v. Social Security Administration

Filing 12

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION recommending the Commissioner's decision be affirmed. Objections due within 14 days of this Recommendation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere on 11/19/2018. (cmn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
NORTHERN DIVISION
SHARON M. CARLSEN
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 1:17-CV-00081-BSM-BD

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

DEFENDANT

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
INSTRUCTIONS
The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to
Chief Judge Brian S. Miller. Any party may file written objections to this
Recommendation. Objections should explain the factual or legal basis for the objection.
To be considered, objections must be received by the Clerk of Court within 14 days of
this Recommendation. By not objecting, parties risk waiving the right to appeal questions
of fact.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Sharon Carlsen applied for social security disability benefits with an alleged
disability onset date of January 1, 2011. (R. at 76). After a hearing, the administrative law
judge (“ALJ”) denied the application. (R. at 50). The Appeals Council denied review. (R.
at 1). Ms. Carlsen requested judicial review, and the district court reversed and remanded.
(R. at 435–38). After another hearing, the ALJ once again denied her application. (R. at
338). The Appeals Council declined to take further action. (R. at 325). Ms. Carlsen filed
this appeal, again requesting judicial review.

I.

The Commissioner’s Decision:
Ms. Carlsen was last insured under the terms of the Social Security Act on

September 30, 2011. (R. at 332). The ALJ found that, through the date last insured, Ms.
Carlsen had the following severe impairments: asthma and fatigue. (R. at 332). Due to
those impairments, the ALJ found that, through the date last insured, Ms. Carlsen had the
residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform sedentary work except she was limited to
occasional climbing, stooping, crouching, kneeling, and crawling; would have to avoid
heavy chemicals, dust, fumes, humidity, and strong perfume; and would have to work
inside in a climate-controlled environment. (R. at 333). The ALJ found that this RFC
would allow Ms. Carlsen to perform her past relevant work as a transportation broker as
actually performed. (R. at 338). The ALJ, therefore, found that Ms. Carlsen was not
disabled. (R. at 338).
II.

Discussion:
The Court’s duty in this appeal is to review the Commissioner’s decision for legal

error and to assure that the decision is supported by substantial evidence on the whole
record. Brown v. Colvin, 825 F.3d 936, 939 (8th Cir. 2016) (citing Halverson v. Astrue,
600 F.3d 922, 929 (8th Cir. 2010)). Stated another way, the decision must rest on enough
evidence that “a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support [the] conclusion.”
Halverson, 600 F.3d at 929. The Court will not reverse the decision, however, solely
because there is evidence to support a conclusion different from that reached by the
Commissioner. Pelkey v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 575, 578 (8th Cir. 2006).

Ms. Carlsen argues that the ALJ erred in finding that her depression and anxiety
were non-severe impairments. She also argues that the ALJ’s decision is otherwise not
supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
The ALJ specifically found that Ms. Carlsen’s depression and anxiety were not
severe impairments, despite diagnoses. (R. at 332). Ms. Carlsen had been prescribed
medication for anxiety and depression, namely Wellbutrin, Buspar, and Doxepin. (R. at
303, 307). Despite this, there is no evidence of other treatment for anxiety or depression
during the relevant time period. While Ms. Carlsen did testify that she lacked insurance at
the time, this testimony is insufficient to overcome the lack of medical evidence pointing
to a severe mental impairment. (R. at 370–71, 375). The objective medical evidence and
treatment records simply do not show that Ms. Carlsen’s depression and anxiety imposed
more than minimal limitations on her ability to work.
Furthermore, the record is sparse concerning Ms. Carlsen’s physical limitations
during the relevant period. Ms. Carlsen’s treating physician opined that she had severe
limitations during the relevant period, but this opinion was rendered in April 2015, well
after the relevant period ended. (R. at 317–24). Treatment records contain nothing to
support the level of limitation that Ms. Carlsen’s treating physician found. The lack of
treatment and the lack of support for the treating physician’s opinion make it difficult to
conclude that the ALJ’s decision is unsupported by substantial evidence on the record as
a whole.
A court may not reverse simply because it would have decided case differently.
Miller v. Colvin, 784 F.3d 472, 477 (8th Cir. 2015). The only question before the Court is

whether there is evidence that a reasonable mind would find sufficient to support the
ALJ’s decision. Id. Because the medical evidence does not support a finding limitation to
the extent that Ms. Carlsen alleges, the ALJ’s decision should be affirmed.
III.

Recommended Disposition:
The ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole

and is not based on legal error. For these reasons, the Commissioner’s decision should be
AFFIRMED.
DATED this 19th day of November, 2018.

____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE