Williams v. Social Security Administration
Filing
17
ORDER affirming the Commissioner's decision and dismissing the 2 Complaint with prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere on 4/1/2015. (ks)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION
DAWN WILLIAMS
V.
PLAINTIFF
NO. 3:14CV106-BD
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner,
Social Security Administration
DEFENDANT
ORDER
The Court heard oral arguments in this social security appeal on March 26, 2015.
Following a review of the record and arguments presented by counsel, the Court
announced its findings of fact and conclusions of law from the bench, affirming the
Commissioner’s decision.
Based on the record as a whole, there was sufficient evidence in the record to
support the Commissioner’s decision as to the limiting effect of the symptoms of Ms.
Williams’s mental impairments and, thus, as to her residual functional capacity. The
Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that Ms. Williams retained the capacity to
perform a reduced range of sedentary work is supported by sufficient evidence.
The ALJ did not err in concluding that Ms. Williams’s stress and ability to
concentrate, persist, and maintain an acceptable pace were adequate to allow her to
perform a reduced range of sedentary work. Thus, there was no error in the hypothetical
question that the ALJ posed to the vocational expert.
An excerpted transcript of the Court’s specific findings and conclusions is
attached.
The Complaint is hereby dismissed, with prejudice, this 1st day of April, 2015.
___________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:14-cv-00106-BD Document 16 Filed 03/31/15 Page 1 of 9
1
1
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
DAWN WILLIAMS,
.
.
PLAINTIFF,
.
.
VS.
.
.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION .
.
COMMISSIONER,
.
.
DEFENDANT.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Docket No. 3:14-CV-00106-BD
Little Rock, Arkansas
March 26, 2015
9:59 A.M.
10
11
12
TRANSCRIPT OF
13
EXCERPTED ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
14
IN ORAL ARGUMENT HEARING
15
BEFORE THE HONORABLE BETH DEERE
16
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
19
ELECTRONIC COURT RECORDER-OPERATOR:
Ms. Suzy Flippen
20
21
22
Transcription Service:
Robin Warbritton
Post Office Box 262
Vilonia, AR 72173
(501) 796-6560
23
24
PROCEEDINGS RECORDED BY ELECTRONIC SOUND RECORDING.
25
TRANSCRIPT PRODUCED BY TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE.
Case 3:14-cv-00106-BD Document 16 Filed 03/31/15 Page 2 of 9
2
1
APPEARANCES:
2
For the Plaintiff:
Mr. Greg Wallace
Bartels Law Firm
Post Office Box 1640
Jonesboro, AR 72403-1640
For the Defendant:
Mr. Stuart G. Lipke
Social Security Administration
Office of the General Counsel
1301 Young Street
Suite A702
Dallas, TX 75202-5433
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 3:14-cv-00106-BD Document 16 Filed 03/31/15 Page 3 of 9
3
P R O C E E D I N G S
1
2
(Call to order of the Court.)
* * *
3
THE COURT:
4
5
All right.
Anything else you would like
to add?
This is an interesting case, but I feel like I've got
6
7
enough information to rule on the case from the bench.
And as
8
the -- the latest procedure we're using is, is that we will
9
have the findings and conclusions transcribed.
Once we
10
receive those back, I will file an order, attach that as an
11
exhibit, and enter the judgment at that time.
12
going to take anywhere -- hopefully, it will be complete in
13
two weeks.
And that's
That's what I'm told.
So, if there is nothing further, I'm ready to rule.
14
15
I'll never know more about the case than I know right this
16
minute.
17
I appreciate the arguments of counsel.
You all both
18
always do a superb job and enlighten me and correct my
19
misapprehensions.
20
All right.
This is the case of Dawn M. Williams v.
21
Carolyn Colvin, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security
22
Administration.
23
Its case number is 3:14-CV-106.
The parties have consented to my jurisdiction.
I
24
have reviewed not only the parties' briefs and the ALJ's
25
decision, I have reviewed the record as well, those portions
Case 3:14-cv-00106-BD Document 16 Filed 03/31/15 Page 4 of 9
4
1
of the record that the parties have directed my attention to,
2
at least those portions.
3
than that, including the transcript of the hearing before the
4
ALJ.
And I have, in fact, reviewed more
Procedurally, the case is ready for decision.
5
6
Williams filed for disability insurance benefits and
7
Supplemental Security Income on October 19th.
8
Dawn
onset date is October 30, 2011.
Her amended
A hearing was held before an ALJ on April 23rd of
9
10
2013.
The Plaintiff, Ms. Williams, was in attendance, along
11
with her attorney and a vocational expert.
The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on May 17th,
12
13
2013.
14
March 28th, 2014, almost a year later.
15
2014, Ms. Williams filed this appeal.
16
The appeals counsel denied a request for review on
And on April 17th,
Dawn Williams was 42 years old at the time of the
17
hearing and the ALJ's decision.
18
and two years of college.
19
impairments, including sleep apnea, Hepatitis C, restless leg
20
syndrome, diabetes, morbid obesity with the ensuing effects of
21
fatigue, joint and back pain, and hypertension.
22
the physical impairments the ALJ found to be severe.
23
24
25
She had completed high school
The ALJ found a number of severe
Those were
He also found severe mental impairments, including
bipolar disorder, depression, and anxiety.
There is no issue as to the impairments.
There is no
Case 3:14-cv-00106-BD Document 16 Filed 03/31/15 Page 5 of 9
5
1
issue challenging the ALJ's decision that she did not meet a
2
listed impairment.
The ALJ's Residual Functional Capacity, that is what
3
4
she could still do in spite of these impairments, is a point
5
of dispute.
6
Williams' alleged symptoms, although acknowledged that she --
7
she could expect to suffer these symptoms to some extent.
8
found that -- or the ALJ found she could do the full range of
9
sedentary work, except he added other limitations.
The ALJ discounted, in part, the severity of Ms.
He
He added
10
walking limits, postural/positional limits.
11
Hep C, obviously, she could not work around open food
12
containers.
13
work.
14
could understand, remember, and follow concrete instructions
15
and that she would have superficial contact with public and
16
coworkers.
17
to account for her mental impairments.
18
she could not return to her previous work as a security guard.
19
But after hearing testimony from a vocational expert, the ALJ
20
found that there were other jobs that exist -- existed in
21
significant numbers in the economy; for example, assembler and
22
touch-up screener.
23
Because of the
And he limited her to semi-skilled or unskilled
And that involved work that would involve -- that she
And this -- these last limitations were intended
She -- the ALJ found
The issue today is rather narrow.
The Plaintiffs
24
contest whether limiting Ms. Williams to semi-skilled or
25
unskilled work, with other limitations on her interpersonal
Case 3:14-cv-00106-BD Document 16 Filed 03/31/15 Page 6 of 9
6
1
contact, and limiting her to concrete decisions, whether that
2
adequately accounted for her moderate limitation in
3
concentration, persistence, and pace.
4
whether the hypothetical to the vocational expert was flawed,
5
because the ALJ did not specifically include limits on -- to
6
the VE in the hypothetical to include limits on her ability to
7
concentrate and persist and keep up the pace.
8
9
10
11
Or stated another way,
In addition, the Plaintiff also argues that there
should have been a limit in the hypothetical to account for
her stress.
The Commissioner argues that the ALJ adequately
12
accounted for the Plaintiff's limitations in concentration,
13
persistence, and pace in the hypothetical to the VE, when he
14
limited the hypothetical person to simple semi-skilled work,
15
with work that she could understand, remember, and follow only
16
concrete instructions and would have only superficial contact
17
with public and coworkers.
18
The question for the Court, of course, is whether the
19
ALJ committed legal error and whether his decision is
20
supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.
21
There may be substantial evidence to support a
22
different outcome, but I cannot reverse on that basis.
23
there is substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's
24
decision, then I'm obligated to affirm.
25
In this case, I find that there is substantial
If
Case 3:14-cv-00106-BD Document 16 Filed 03/31/15 Page 7 of 9
7
1
evidence to support the Commissioner's decision.
Dennis
2
Vowell, who was a psychiatric -- or a psychological
3
consultant, I should say, is cited -- his report is cited by
4
both the Plaintiff and the Defendants in support of their
5
positions.
6
that report.
And both, Plaintiff and Defendant, find support in
But what Dr. Vowell said is that Ms. Williams had
7
8
mild to moderate impairments in her ability to respond
9
adequately to basic assessment of attention and concentration.
10
He said that her persistence appeared adequate throughout the
11
session.
12
acceptable time frame was adequate.
13
had mild to moderate stress and that she would have difficulty
14
coping in response to -- to a stressful situation.
15
her capacity to cope with typical mental cognitive demands of
16
work.
Her capacity to perform within a basically
But he also said that she
He said
17
So, both -- both parties, as I said, find support in
18
his report, which I believe is at page -- I've got it, at 444
19
-- actually, it begins on page 440, I believe.
20
In addition, Brad Williams Ph.D., a state agency
21
physician, also opined that Ms. Williams had moderate limits
22
in concentration, persistence, and pace, and recommended
23
limiting her to work where interpersonal contact would be
24
incidental.
25
That provides part of the substantial evidence that
Case 3:14-cv-00106-BD Document 16 Filed 03/31/15 Page 8 of 9
8
1
supports the Commissioner's decision.
In addition to that, we
2
have Ms. Williams' activities of daily living, which include a
3
number of activities that are cited by both Dr. Vowell and Dr.
4
Williams.
5
indicating that she -- that Ms. Williams is -- prepares her
6
own meals, she doesn't need any special reminders to attend to
7
her personal grooming.
8
her from 45 minutes to an hour.
9
Drives a car.
We have a report from her mother in the record,
When she cooks, she cooks -- it takes
She does light housekeeping.
She goes out alone.
She drives.
10
stores.
11
can count change, handles her savings account, uses a
12
checkbook, and that her ability to handle money has not
13
changed since the onset of her condition.
14
television daily.
15
phone, and although she notes that she can't socialize as much
16
as she used to.
17
She shops two hours a week.
She shops in
She pays her own bills,
She reads, watches
She visits people in person and on the
So, her activities of daily living, as reported by
18
not only her mother, but -- but by her own account, also
19
supports the finding.
20
Now, the legal question is whether the hypothetical
21
should have specifically included the finding by the -- the
22
ALJ that Ms. Williams had moderate limitations in
23
concentration, persistence, and pace.
24
position is that the specifics that are considered, and then
25
the psychiatric review technique form, are not necessarily
The Commissioner's
Case 3:14-cv-00106-BD Document 16 Filed 03/31/15 Page 9 of 9
9
1
required to be included in the RFC assessment.
And while the
2
Plaintiff has made a cogent argument to the contrary, I find
3
that the Commissioner's view is -- is the better view, in that
4
it's -- it's the only practical view.
5
supported by the regulations themselves.
And I think that it's
So, for all those reasons, I find that there is no
6
7
legal error and that there is substantial evidence to support
8
the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits to Ms. Williams.
Anything further, Professor Wallace?
9
10
MR. WALLACE:
11
THE COURT:
Mr. Lipke?
12
MR. LIPKE:
No, Judge.
13
THE COURT:
All right.
14
you.
15
today.
16
No, Your Honor.
It's been a pleasure having
And I thank you for your preparation and your attendance
We're off the record.
(Adjournment at 10:35 a.m.)
17
ELECTRONIC SOUND RECORDING CERTIFICATION:
18
I, court approved transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a
19
correct transcript from the official electronic sound
20
recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
21
22
/s/Robin Warbritton
Signature of Approved Transcriber
23
24
25
Robin Warbritton
Typed or Printed Name
March 31, 2015
Date
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?