Turnbow v. Social Security Administration

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER. The ALJ made no legal error. The Court denies the request for relief 2 and affirms the decision denying the application. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 8/12/2014. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
Phyllis Ann Turnbow

Plaintiff
No. 3:13CV00083-JTR

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner,
Social Security Administration

Defendant

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER
Phyllis Ann Turnbow seeks judicial review of the denial of her application for
supplemental security income (SSI).1 Turnbow initially based disability on thyroid
disease, depression, and panic attacks,2 but she now relies solely on mental impairment.
She alleged disability beginning in November 2001, but she wasn’t eligible for SSI
before she applied on July 28, 2010.3
The Commissioner’s decision. After considering Turnbow’s application, the
Commissioner’s ALJ determined Turnbow has severe impairments — hypothyroidism,
hypertension, anxiety disorder, and depressive disorder4 — but she can do unskilled
work at all exertional levels.5 Because a vocational expert identified available unskilled

1

SSA record at p. 100.

2

Id. at p. 122.

3

See 20 C.F.R. § 416.335; Cruse v. Bowen, 867 F.2d 1183, 1185 (8th Cir. 1989).

4

SSA record at p. 11.

5

Id. at p. 13.

work, the ALJ determined that Turnbow is not disabled under the Social Security Act
and denied the application.6
After the Commissioner’s Appeals Council denied a request for review,7 the
decision became a final decision for judicial review.8 Turnbow filed this case to
challenge the decision.9 In reviewing the decision, the court must determine whether
substantial evidence supports the decision and whether the ALJ made a legal error.10
Turnbow’s allegations. Turnbow challenges the ALJ’s determination about
mental impairment.11 She contends the ALJ failed to consider all of her impairments.
She claims, that considered in combination, her impairments are severe enough to show

6

Id. at pp. 20-21.

7

Id. at p. 1.

8

See Anderson v. Sullivan, 959 F.2d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1992) (stating, “the Social
Security Act precludes general federal subject matter jurisdiction until administrative
remedies have been exhausted” and explaining that the appeal procedure permits
claimants to appeal only final decisions).
9

Docket entry # 1.

10

See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (requiring the district court to determine whether the
Commissioner’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the
Commissioner conformed with applicable regulations); Long v. Chater, 108 F.3d 185,
187 (8th Cir. 1997) (“We will uphold the Commissioner’s decision to deny an applicant
disability benefits if the decision is not based on legal error and if there is substantial
evidence in the record as a whole to support the conclusion that the claimant was not
disabled.”).
11

Docket entry # 11.
2

she is disabled. She contends the ALJ should have asked a treating physician about her
ability to work or ordered a consultative mental evaluation. She maintains substantial
evidence does not support the decision.
Whether substantial evidence exists. Substantial evidence exists if a reasonable
mind would accept the evidence as adequate to support a determination.12 The
determination at issue in this case is Turnbow’s ability to work. The ALJ determined
that Turnbow can work where interpersonal contact is incidental to work performed;
complexity of tasks is learned and performed by rote, with few variables; requires little
independent judgment; requires simple, direct, concrete supervision; does not involve
the general public; and does not involve constant pressure or stress.13 The question
before the court is whether a reasonable mind would accept the evidence as adequate to
show Turnbow can work within these parameters.
The ALJ’s determination about a claimant’s ability to work must be supported by
medical evidence; a claimant’s subjective allegations are not enough to prove she is
disabled.14 Therein lies the problem for Turnbow; she relies on little more than her
allegations. She claims numerous mental impairments, but the medical evidence reflects
12

Slusser v. Astrue, 557 F.3d 923, 925 (8th Cir. 2009).

13

SSA record at p. 13.

14

42 U.S.C. § 423 (d)(5(A); Flynn v. Astrue, 513 F.3d 788, 792 (8th. Cir. 2008);
Lewis v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 642, 646 (8th Cir. 2003); 20 C.F.R. § 416.908.
3

episodic complaints of depression and anxiety, and two efforts toward treatment.
In December 2009 — seven months before she applied for SSI — Turnbow
presented to a mental health provider in order to obtain her driver’s license.15 According
to Turnbow, she lost her license after driving under the influence of a psychotropic drug.
She later explained that it took her two years to get her license back because she refused
to attend drug rehabilitation.16 She did not return for treatment.
Eighteen months later — six weeks before her hearing — Turnbow returned to
the same mental health provider and complained about mood swings and depression.17
She explained that her PCP prescribed psychotropic drugs.18 According to Turnbow, the
prescribed medication generally controls her symptoms.19 “An impairment which can
be controlled by treatment or medication is not considered disabling.”20 Turnbow
attended one psychotherapy session.21 She testified that she did not return due to

15

SSA record at p. 180.

16

Id. at p. 287.

17

Id. at p. 270.

18

Id. at p. 271.

19

Id. See also id. at pp. 180, 185 & 272.

20

Estes v. Barnhart, 275 F.3d 722, 725 (8th Cir. 2002).

21

SSA record at p. 280.
4

financial constraints.22
Turnbow may lack financial resources, but the timing of her efforts to obtain
mental health treatment casts doubt on her motivation and credibility. Treatment notes
associated with her brief encounters with a mental health provider provide no “medical
signs and findings, established by medically acceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic
techniques, which show the existence of a medical impairment…which could reasonably
be expected to produce the…symptoms alleged and which…would lead to a conclusion
that [Turnbow] is under a disability.”23
Although the scant medical evidence does not implicate a serious mental
impairment, the ALJ ordered a mental diagnostic evaluation.24 The examiner diagnosed
depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and alcohol abuse.25 According to the examiner,
Turnbow appears capable of: (1) communicating in an intelligible and effective manner,
(2) coping with the typical mental demands of basic work like tasks, (3) attending to and
sustaining concentration on basic tasks, and (4) sustaining persistence in completing
22

Id. at pp. 36 & 43.

23

42 U.S.C. § 423 (d)(5(A) (requiring medical evidence for a determination of
disability). See also 20 C.F.R. § 416.908 (“A physical or mental impairment must be
established by medical evidence consisting of signs, symptoms, and laboratory findings,
not only by your statement of symptoms.”).
24

SSA record at p. 285.

25

Id. at p. 290.
5

work-like tasks within an acceptable time frame.26 Medical experts opined that Turnbow
can work where interpersonal contact is incidental to work performed; complexity of
tasks is learned and performed by rote, with few variables; requires little independent
judgment; and supervision required is simple, direct, and concrete.27 A reasonable mind
would accept the evidence as adequate to show Turnbow can work within the defined
parameters because: (1) the ALJ adopted the experts’ limitations, (2) the ALJ excluded
work involving constant pressure or stress, and (3) no medical evidence shows
symptoms preventing Turnbow from working within the parameters.
The ALJ asked a vocational expert about available work involving the defined
parameters. The vocational expert identified hospital cleaner and housekeeping.28
Turnbow reported that she is a good housekeeper.29 She cleans her sisters’ homes.30 A
reasonable mind would accept the vocational evidence as adequate to show work exists
that Turnbow can do regardless of whether such work exists where she lives, whether

26

Id. at p. 291-92.

27

Id. at pp. 192 & 223.

28

Id. at p. 45.

29

Id. at p. 272.

30

Id. at pp. 35 & 169.
6

a job vacancy exists, or whether she would be hired if she applied for work.31 Because
such work exists, Turnbow is not disabled under social security disability law.
Conclusion.

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision denying

Turnbow’s application. The ALJ made no legal error. The ALJ adequately developed
the record as to mental impairment and considered all of the medical evidence, but that
evidence does not support Turnbow’s claim. For these reasons, the court DENIES the
request for relief (docket entry # 2) and AFFIRMS the decision denying the application.
It is so ordered this 12th day of August, 2014.

_________________________
United States Magistrate Judge

31

42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(B) (defining disability under social security disability

law).
7