Rogers v. Social Security Administration
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 2 Mr. Rogers's request for relief and affirming the decision denying the application. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere on 12/5/2012. (dmn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FRANKLYN JAMES ROGERS
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner,
Social Security Administration
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Franklin James Rogers sought judicial review of the denial of his applications for
disability income benefits and supplemental security income. Mr. Rogers last worked
as a forklift driver. His applications followed the loss of his job. Mr. Rogers based
disability on his back and neck, a skin disorder, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
(“COPD”), sleep apnea, a learning disability, and stress.1 At his hearing, Mr. Rogers
testified that he had psoriasis over 73% of his body.2 He estimated that, if placed in a
job, he would miss 16 or 17 days of work per month due to psoriasis and back pain.3
The Commissioner’s decision. After considering Mr. Rogers’s applications, the
Commissioner’s ALJ determined that although Mr. Rogers had severe impairments—
obesity, degenerative disc disease of the cervical and lumbar spines, and sleep
SSA record at p. 190.
Id. at p. 45.
Id. at p. 51.
apnea4—Mr. Rogers had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to do light work with
specified limitations.5 The ALJ found that chest pain, psoriasis, and COPD, were not
severe impairments, and found that the alleged learning disability was not medically
determinable.6 Because a vocational expert identified jobs a person with Mr. Rogers’s
RFC could do, the ALJ concluded that Mr. Rogers was not disabled under the Social
Security Act.7 After the Commissioner’s Appeals Council denied Mr. Rogers’s request
for review,8 the ALJ’s decision became a final decision for judicial review.9 Mr. Rogers
filed this case to challenge the ALJ’s decision.
Mr. Rogers’s arguments. Mr. Rogers raised many issues to challenge the ALJ’s
decision, but his arguments focus on the ALJ’s consideration of psoriasis, COPD and the
Id. at p. 13.
Id. at p. 15. The ALJ imposed the following limitations: Mr. Rogers must have a
sit/stand option; he cannot climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; and he must avoid
concentrated exposure to fumes, cold, heat and sun exposure.
Id. at p. 14.
Id. at p. 18.
Id. at p. 1.
See Anderson v. Sullivan, 959 F.2d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1992) (stating that “the Social
Security Act precludes general federal subject matter jurisdiction until administrative
remedies have been exhausted” and explaining that the Commissioner’s appeal
procedure permits claimants to appeal only final decisions).
alleged learning disability. The court’s discussion of the arguments were consolidated
for judicial efficiency.
Credibility. Because medical evidence did not support Mr. Rogers’s allegations
of disabling limitation due to psoriasis, COPD, and learning disability, the success of
Mr. Rogers’s case depended upon the ALJ’s assessment of credibility. The ALJ
discounted the credibility of Mr. Rogers’s allegations. To challenge that assessment,
Mr. Rogers complained that the ALJ failed to discuss inconsistencies in the record.10
An ALJ has a statutory duty “to assess the credibility of the claimant….”11 To
evaluate Mr. Rogers’s credibility, the ALJ followed the required two-step process12 and
considered the required factors.13 Thus, the question before the court is whether
substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s credibility assessment.
Docket entry # 11, pp. 15-18.
Nelson v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 363, 366 (8th Cir. 1992).
See Policy Interpretation Ruling Titles II & XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in
Disability Claims: Assessing the Credibility of an Individual’s Statements, SSR 96-7p (July 2,
In considering the credibility a claimant’s subjective complaints, an ALJ must
consider: (1) the claimant’s prior work record; (2) observations by third parties and
treating and examining physicians relating to such matters as: (a) the claimant’s daily
activities; (b) the duration, frequency and intensity of the pain; (c) precipitating and
aggravating factors; (d) dosage, effectiveness and side effects of medication; and (e)
functional restrictions. Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984).
“Subjective complaints may be discounted if there are inconsistencies in the
evidence as a whole.”14 The ALJ discussed inconsistencies in the evidence as a whole.15
For example, Mr. Rogers based disability in part on sleep apnea, but he testified that his
sleep improved with the use of a continuous positive airway pressure therapy
machine.16 As another example, Mr. Rogers based disability on his back and neck.17 He
maintained his back and neck prevented him from working,18 but diagnostic testing
provided no reason for such limitation.19 The ALJ properly discounted Mr. Rogers’s
complaints of pain and limitation because they were inconsistent with the evidence as a
Polaski, 739 F.2d at 1322.
SSA record at pp. 15-17.
Id. at p. 42-43.
Id. at p. 190
Id. at p. 47.
Id. at p. 312 (MRI of cervical spine showing broad based central disc protrusion
at discs C5-6, causing indentation on the anterior aspect of the thecal sac with spinal
stenosis with the AP diameter of spinal canal measuring approximately 8 mm and mild
narrowing of bilateral neural formamen slightly more prominent on the left side); p. 315
(displacement cervical disc without any disease or disorder of the spinal cord).
Dunahoo v. Apfel, 241 F.3d 1033, 1038 (8th Cir. 2001).
Psoriasis. “[P]soriasis is a chronic, non-contagious disease characterized by
inflamed lesions covered with silvery-white scabs of dead skin.”21 Mr. Rogers argues
that the ALJ should have found psoriasis was a severe impairment at step two of the
disability-determination process.22 He maintains that his psoriasis met the step-three
requirements for listing 8.0523 and argues that the ALJ should have included limitations
flowing from psoriasis in the hypothetical question at step five.24
The step-two aspect of Mr. Rogers’s argument provides no basis for relief
because step two directs a conclusion of “non-disabled” if the claimant fails to prove a
severe impairment so as to weed out claimants whose abilities to work are not
significantly limited.25 If the claimant meets his step-two burden, there can be no
reversible error where the record shows the ALJ considered all of the medical evidence
and all of the claimant’s impairments. Here, Mr. Rogers met his burden to show a
severe impairment, so his applications proceeded to step three. The record shows that
Maureen Haggerty, 5 The Gale Encyclopedia of Med. 3613 (4th ed.).
Docket entry # 11, pp. 2-4.
Id. at pp. 5-6.
Id. at p. 7.
Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 156-57 (1987) (O’Connor, J., concurring)
(concurring and stating that the Social Security Act authorizes the Commissioner to
weed out applications by claimants who cannot possibly meet the statutory definition of
disability at step two of the disability-determination process).
the ALJ considered all of the medical evidence and all of Mr. Rogers’s impairments.
Even if his psoriasis was a severe impairment, no harm flowed from finding that the
psoriasis was non-severe because Mr. Rogers proceeded to the next step.
Mr. Rogers’s step-three argument provides no basis for relief because no
objective medical evidence established the required severity. Listing 8.05 applies to
dermatitis—including psoriasis—”with extensive skin lesions that persist for at least 3
months despite continuing treatment as prescribed.”26 “Persist” means “the
longitudinal clinical record shows that, with few exceptions, [the claimant’s] lesions
have been at the level of severity specified in the listing.”27 Meeting the severity
requirement requires “information about the onset, duration, frequency of flare-ups,
and prognosis of [the] skin disorder; the location, size, and appearance of lesions; and,
when applicable, history of exposure to toxins, allergens, or irritants, familial incidence,
seasonal variation, stress factors, and [the clamant’s] ability to function outside of a
highly protective environment.”28
The medical evidence in Mr. Rogers’s case did not establish severity.
Dermatologist David H. Weingold diagnosed Mr. Rogers with psoriasis on January 15,
20 C.F.R. pt. 404 subpt. P, app. 1, § 8.05.
Id. at § 8.00G.
Id. at § 8.00B.
2009.29 At that time, Dr. Weingold reported inflamed skin patches on Mr. Rogers’s face,
chest, back, arms, thighs and calves. Dr. Weingold estimated the patches covered 30%
of Mr. Rogers’s body surface.
Five weeks later—on February 25, 2009—Mr. Rogers’s primary care physician
(“PCP”) characterized the skin as intact without lesions or rashes.30 On October 12,
2009, the PCP found no skin rash.31 On October 2, 2010, an emergency room physician
found no skin rashes.32
The only contrary medical evidence was a PCP note stating that Dr. Weingold
had characterized Mr. Rogers’s condition as severe and that Mr. Rogers’s condition had
“not been alleviated by medications either oral or topical.”33 The PCP’s treatment notes
contradicted that characterization.
SSA record at pp. 558-59.
Id. at p. 274.
Id. at pp. 554-55.
Id. at p. 514.
Id. at p. 557.
The PCP’s treatment notes reflected periodic treatment for psoriasis34—not
continuous treatment as required by listing 8.05. The longitudinal clinical record did
not show (with a few exceptions) that Mr. Rogers’s lesions were extensive and persisted
for at least three months despite continuing treatment as prescribed. Mr. Rogers
testified that 70% of his body was covered with patches, but the medical evidence
established few skin eruptions. Mr. Rogers did not establish the requirements for listing
Mr. Rogers’s step-five complaint—that the ALJ should have included psoriasis in
the hypothetical question to the vocational expert—provides no basis for relief because
“the ALJ may exclude any alleged impairments…properly rejected as untrue or
unsubstantiated.”36 The ALJ rejected Mr. Rogers’s allegations about psoriasis by
characterizing psoriasis as a non-severe impairment. The rejection was proper because
See id. at p. 382 (on Feb. 24, 2009, prescribing Soriatane for psoriasis); p. 318 (on
May 15, 2009, explaining why Mr. Rogers was not working and listing no medications
for psoriasis); p. 203 (on July 19, 2009, appealing the initial denial of his applications and
listing no medications for psoriasis); p. 213 (on Sept. 8, 2009, appealing denial of
applications on reconsideration and listing medications for psoriasis); p. 541 (on Sept.
21, 2010, updating medication list, but including nothing for psoriasis).
Accord Jones v. Astrue, 619 F.3d 963, 971 (8th Cir. 2010) (“[A]mple evidence
exists…to support the ALJ’s conclusion that…restrictive pulmonary disease was not an
‘impairment’ matching a listing for chronic pulmonary insufficiency.).
Perkins v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 892, 901-02 (8th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations and
the objective medical evidence did not substantiate Mr. Rogers’s allegations as to the
severity of his psoriasis.37 Thus, the ALJ was not required to include psoriasis in the
hypothetical question. To the extent Mr. Rogers complained that psoriasis prevented
him from working in jobs involving food, that aspect of his argument provides no basis
for relief because the vocational expert identified jobs that did not implicate food
COPD. COPD “refers to two related, progressive diseases of the respiratory
system, chronic bronchitis and emphysema.”39 Both diseases are characterized by
“persistent difficulty in expelling (exhaling) air from the lungs resulting in loss of lung
function.”40 Mr. Rogers complains that the ALJ erred by characterizing his COPD as
non-severe. Like his step-two argument about psoriasis, the argument provides no
basis for relief because Mr. Rogers met his burden to show a severe impairment, so his
applications proceeded to step three. The record shows the ALJ considered all of the
Accord McGeorge v. Barnhart, 321 F.3d 766, 769 (8th Cir. 2003) (“The ALJ
properly limited his RFC determination to only the impairments and limitations he
found to be credible based on his evaluation of the entire record.”).
SSA record at p. 54 (responding to hypothetical question and identifying ticket
seller and cashier as available jobs).
Harry W. Golden & Tish Davidson, 2 The Gale Encyclopedia of Med. 1024 (4th
medical evidence and all of Mr. Rogers’s impairments. Even if COPD was a severe
impairment, no harm flowed from finding COPD was non-severe.
To the extent Mr. Rogers complained that COPD limited his ability to work, the
ALJ included limitations flowing from COPD in Mr. Rogers’s RFC. Avoiding
respiratory irritants and excessively low or high temperatures can improve function in
COPD patients.41 The ALJ included those limitations in the hypothetical question.
Learning disability. Mr. Rogers based disability in part on a learning disability.42
He complains that the ALJ erroneously noted that he had worked in a semi-skilled job
as a truck driver and suggests that the ALJ failed to develop the record in regard to his
learning ability complaint.43
The ALJ has a duty to fairly and fully develop the record as to the matters at
issue,44 but the claimant bears the burden of providing medical evidence to prove his
alleged disability.45 Mr. Rogers provided only his testimony. He testified that he
Id. at p. 1028.
SSA record at p. 190.
Docket entry # 11, p. 18.
Landess v. Weinberger, 490 F.2d 1187, 1189 (8th Cir. 1973).
Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 147 n.5 (1987) (“It is not unreasonable to require
the claimant, who is in a better position to provide information about his own medical
condition, to do so.”).
completed part of the eleventh grade and attended classes in a resource room.46 He also
stated that he had difficulty reading.47 This testimony was insufficient to alert the ALJ
of the possibility of a severe mental impairment; thus, the ALJ was not required to
develop the record about mental impairment before ruling on Mr. Rogers’s
Notably, Mr. Rogers reported working as a truck driver off-and-on from 1993 to
2002, hauling materials cross country.49 The vocational expert classified the work as
semi-skilled work.50 Working for many years in a semi-skilled profession is inconsistent
with an allegation of a disabling learning disability. The ALJ did not err by finding that
learning disability was not medically determinable.
RFC. In addition to complaining about psoriasis and COPD, Mr. Rogers had
other complaints about the RFC determination. Those complaints do not require
SSA record at p. 37.
Byes v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 913, 916 (8th Cir. 2012) (“If sufficient evidence alerts the
ALJ to the possibility of a severe mental impairment, the ALJ must further develop the
record about mental impairments before ruling on the severity of the claimant’s
SSA record at p. 191.
Id. at p. 53.
The complaint about Mr. Rogers’s age51 referred to no more than a typographical
error.52 The ALJ correctly stated Mr. Rogers’s date of birth—June 14, 1966—and the
amended on-set date—February 24, 2009. Per those dates, Mr. Rogers alleged he was
disabled at age 42. No basis exists for remanding for the determination of Mr. Rogers’s
Mr. Rogers also complains that the ALJ did not include avoidance of hazards in
his RFC.53 This complaint refers to another typographical error. The ALJ included “no
exposure to hazards” on the sixth page of the unfavorable decision,54 but failed to
include avoidance of hazards in the bold-faced statement of RFC on the fifth page.55 No
harm flowed from the typographical error because the ALJ included the avoidance of
hazards in the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert.56
The complaint about the consideration of radiographic imaging57 fails because no
medical evidence supported a further reduction in Mr. Rogers’s RFC. Neurosurgeon
Docket entry # 11, p. 6.
SSA record at p. 17 (referring to Mr. Rogers as 21 years old).
Docket entry # 11, p. 6.
SSA record at p. 16.
Id. at p. 15.
Id. at p. 53.
Docket entry # 11, pp. 9-10.
John A. Campbell’s treatment notes were the most recent, and thus most probative,
evidence of Mr. Rogers’s back and neck condition.58 Dr. Campbell described Mr. Rogers
as ambulating independently without muscle spasticity, with a fairly good range of
motion in the cervical spine and full muscle strength in both arms. He reported that Mr.
Rogers had a diminished reflex in the right biceps and some slight diminution of light
touch in the right thumb and forefinger. After reviewing radiographic imaging, Dr
Campbell stated that a protruding disc at C5-6 had caused some stenosis; that is, a disc
had bulged out of its normal resting place and placed pressure on the spinal nerve
cord.59 Dr. Campbell discussed surgical and non-surgical options, and Mr. Rogers
wanted to hold off on surgery to see if things improved over time. Mr. Rogers did not
return to Dr. Campbell or to his PCP for neck or back pain. The failure to seek
treatment indicated that the condition with Mr. Rogers’s neck and back pain was not
disabling. Radiographic imaging did not support further reduction of Mr. Rogers’s
The complaint about the lack of a consultative opinion60 fails because the medical
evidence did not implicate the need for a consultative exam. The ALJ must “determine
SSA record at pp. 318-20.
John T. Lohr , 5 The Gale Encyclopedia of Med. 4090 (4th ed.) (“Spinal stenosis
is any narrowing of the spinal canal that causes compression of the spinal nerve cord.”).
Docket entry # 11, pp. 14-15.
a claimant’s RFC based on all relevant evidence, including medical records,
observations of treating physicians and others, and claimant’s own descriptions of his
limitations.”61 The record included treatment notes from specialists, diagnostic imaging,
and observations by treating PCPs. A state medical consultant twice reviewed the
medical evidence and opined that Mr. Rogers could do light work.62 The ALJ further
reduced Mr. Rogers’s RFC by finding Mr. Rogers needed a sit/stand option and could
not climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds. No medical evidence supported a further
Step five. Finally, Mr. Rogers maintains that the Commissioner did not meet his
step-five burden. If the claimant shows he cannot do his past work, the burden shifts to
the Commissioner to show work exists in the national economy that the claimant can
do.63 Although Mr. Rogers complains that the ALJ failed to acknowledge and apply
that burden,64 the ALJ correctly stated the Commissioner’s burden on the third page of
the unfavorable opinion.65
Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1217-18 (8th Cir. 2001).
SSA record at p. 246 (on July 1, 2009) & p. 327 (on Sept. 5, 2009).
Baumgarten v. Chater, 75 F.3d 366, 368 (8th Cir. 1996).
Docket entry # 11, pp. 10-11.
SSA record at p. 13.
Mr. Rogers also suggests that the Commissioner did not meet his burden because
the vocational expert did not explain why his testimony conflicted with the Dictionary
of Occupational Titles (“DOT”).66 Mr. Rogers’s argument flows from the recitation of
the DOT code provision for the job of ticket seller. The ticket seller job is reflected in the
transcript of the hearing as code “211.407-030.”67 The actual code provision is
“211.467.030.” There are at least two possible explanations for the difference: the
vocational expert mis-spoke or the court reporter made a typographical error. In the
absence of a showing harm, the reason does not matter. Mr. Rogers showed no harm.
“The burden of persuasion to prove disability and to demonstrate RFC remains on the
claimant, even when the burden of production shifts to the Commissioner at step
five.”68 Mr. Rogers did not prove disability.
Conclusion. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision denying Mr.
Rogers’s applications. The ALJ made no legal error. For these reasons, the court
DENIES Mr. Rogers’s request for relief (docket entry # 2) and AFFIRMS the decision
denying the application.
Docket entry # 11, pp. 11-12.
SSA record at p. 55.
Stormo v. Barnhart, 377 F.3d 801, 806 (8th Cir. 2004).
It is so ordered this 5th day of December, 2012.
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?