Davis v. Social Security Administration
ORDER affirming the final decision of the Commissioner and dismissing with prejudice Davis' complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris on 1/11/2017. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JOHNA LEE ANN DAVIS
CASE NO. 3:16CV00157 PSH
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner,
Social Security Administration
Plaintiff Johna Lee Ann Davis (“Davis”), in her appeal of the final decision of the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (defendant “Colvin”) to deny her claim for
Disability Insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI), contends the decision
by the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) that she could perform her past relevant work was
erroneous because: (1) the ALJ relied on testimony from a vocational expert without resolving a
possible conflict between the expert’s testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles; (2) there
is not substantial evidence to show Davis can perform sedentary work; (3) there is not substantial
evidence to show Davis has no significant mental impairment; and (4) the ALJ’s credibility analysis
was flawed. The parties have ably summarized the medical records and the testimony given at the
administrative hearing conducted on April 8, 2015. (Tr. 25-48). The Court has carefully reviewed
the record to determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support
Colvin’s decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Administrative hearing: Green testified she was 41 years old, with a high school education
followed by an eighteen month “career” course. (Tr. 31). Green lived with her sons, who were 10
and 16. She previously worked as a legal secretary, publisher relations worker, safety coordinator,
and as an office manager. Green was let go from her last job, with her employer telling her “it just
She collected unemployment for a few months after her last
employment. Green stated she is unable to work full time because she cannot “sit for very long,
stand for very long, walk very far due to my back and leg, buttocks, foot.” (Tr. 38). Green had two
back surgeries (a diskectomy and a disk implantation) in 2009 and 2010. She estimated she could
stand for 30 minutes, then would need to sit down for 10 minutes, and that she needs a nap during
the day. She testified she could not lift more than a gallon of milk. She takes pain medication and
Prozac, and described a side effect of spending a great deal of time in the bathroom. Finally, she
described being forgetful and struggling with concentration. A vocational expert was called, and
the ALJ posed a hypothetical question containing the following assumptions: the claimant was
Green’s age, with her employment background, deals with mild to moderate pain, can only
occasionally climb, stoop, crouch, kneel, and crawl, could perform sedentary work lifting no more
than 10 pounds, standing/walking no more than 2 hours, with no more than a half hour at a time, and
she would have the ability to get up and stretch and sit back down, with very limited overhead
reaching (no more than 1/3 of the day). The vocational expert testified such a worker could perform
the jobs of legal secretary, publisher relations worker, and office manager. (Tr. 27-47).
ALJ’s Decision: In his May 20151 opinion the ALJ found Green had severe impairments of
degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, status-post discectomy in 2009 and 2010, and
Green’s alleged onset date is March 29, 2013, making the relevant period for disability purposes
from March 29, 2013, through May 18, 2015.
degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine. The ALJ found Davis had the residual functional
capacity (“RFC”) to perform sedentary work with the limitations which mirrored his question posed
to the vocational expert. The ALJ found Davis’s administrative hearing testimony was not entirely
credible, citing the objective medical evidence, Davis’s improvement with certain medications, and
her testimony that she stopped working for reasons other than her impairments. (Tr. 16-18). The
ALJ also noted that no medical source opined Davis was unable to work since her alleged onset date.
Finally, the ALJ assigned “little weight” to the findings of the state agency physicians, who stated
Davis could perform light work. Instead, the ALJ focused more heavily on the medical records of
Davis’s treating physicians.
Claim 1: ALJ erroneously relied on testimony from a vocational expert without
resolving a possible conflict between the expert’s testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational
The hypothetical question posed by the ALJ included a limitation for Davis to only
occasionally reach overhead, which the ALJ defined as no more than 1/3 of the work day. (Tr. 46).
The vocational expert testified Davis could perform three of her past jobs (legal secretary, publisher
relations worker, and office manager). Davis contends it was error for the ALJ to rely on the
expert’s testimony because the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”) describes these jobs as
requiring the ability to engage in frequent reaching. Davis cites Kemp ex rel. Kemp v. Colvin, 743
F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2014) to support her argument. The Kemp case, however, does not demonstrate
the ALJ erred in this instance. In Kemp, the ALJ found the claimant could not perform his past
relevant work but that he could perform work identified by the vocational expert. “Without
explanation” the ALJ noted the vocational expert’s testimony was consistent with the DOT. Id. at
632. The job of check weigher, identified by the vocational expert in Kemp, required constant
reaching, according to the DOT. The ALJ had restricted the claimant to work with only occasional
reaching. Unlike the Kemp case, the ALJ here found Davis could perform three of her past jobs, and
the record shows that those jobs, as actually performed, did not require frequent reaching. To the
contrary, Davis indicated one legal secretary job required occasional reaching, another legal
secretary job required reaching one hour a day, and her publisher relations position required thirty
minutes reaching in a day. (Tr. 268-270). Further, the ALJ did not conclude without comment, as
in Kemp, that Davis could perform the jobs as required by the DOT. In his decision, the ALJ stated,
“In comparing the claimant’s residual functional capacity with the physical and mental demands of
this work, I find that the claimant is able to perform it as actually and generally performed.” (Tr.
19). Kemp does not compel the conclusion urged by Davis. See, e.g., Jones v. Chater, 86 F.3d 823
(8th Cir. 1996) (claimant not disabled if she can perform the actual functional demands and job duties
of a past relevant job). Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s treatment of the reaching
requirements as they related to the past relevant work as actually performed by Davis. There is no
merit to this claim.
Claim two: The ALJ erred in finding Davis can perform sedentary work.
This is a challenge to the RFC determination made by the ALJ. Initially, we note that the
RFC need not mirror the findings of any one physician, as the ALJ is not bound to choose any one
physician and adopt his/her findings as the appropriate RFC. Instead, it “is the ALJ’s responsibility
to determine 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.”
Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1217 (8th Cir. 2001). Here, the ALJ found Davis capable of
performing sedentary work with the numerous limitations already recited herein. These limitations
primarily were related to the residual effects of Davis’ earlier back surgeries. In reaching the RFC
determination, the ALJ examined Davis’ medical records in detail. In particular, the ALJ cited the
medical evidence showing normal range of motion, normal gait and station, and no neurological
deficits in May 2013, well after the surgeries. In addition, the ALJ observed that Davis returned to
work in October 2012 and worked through her alleged onset date of March 29, 2013. The ALJ also
noted that Davis indicated to her treating physician in October 2013 that she will try to start walking
for at least 30 minutes four times a week and she was “doing well.” (Tr. 440). Generally, her 2013
visits with her treating physician reflect a concern for her blood pressure, which was well controlled
with medication. Otherwise, she is consistently noted to be doing well. (Tr. 426-455). The ALJ
relied more heavily on the medical findings of physicians who actually examined Davis, and
assigned “little weight” to the non-examining state agency physicians. (Tr. 18). The record supports
this approach. Coupled with the discounted credibility, which will be addressed as claim four, the
ALJ reached his RFC conclusion. We find substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC findings.
Claim three: The ALJ erred in failing to find she had a significant mental impairment.
The ALJ considered Davis’ mental impairments (depressive disorder, pain disorder not
otherwise specified, and adjustment disorder with depressed mood) both singly and in combination,
determining that they did not constitute a severe impairment. In reaching this conclusion, the ALJ
addressed the four broad functional areas commonly known as the “paragraph B” criteria. The ALJ
found Davis had mild limitations in activities of daily living, social functioning, and with
concentration, persistence, or pace, and that Davis had experienced no episodes of decompensation.
The ALJ thoroughly discussed the findings of Dr. Samuel B. Hester (“Hester”), who performed an
April 2014 psychological consultative examination, diagnosing Davis with pain disorder and
adjustment disorder and finding she could cope with the mental demands of basic work-like tasks.
(Tr. 591-599). The ALJ gave Hester’s opinion “some weight,” but departed from Hester’s findings
in concluding Davis could cope with the mental demands of all work tasks rather than just basic
work tasks. The ALJ’s departure was based upon Davis’ lack of any mental health treatment, the
absence of any testimony to psychological limitations, and her improvement when her treating
family practitioner prescribed Prozac in 2014. These are valid considerations, and the ALJ’s
consideration of these issues, and his overall assessment of Davis’ mental impairments, is supported
by substantial evidence. There is no merit in this claim.
Claim four: The ALJ’s credibility analysis was flawed.
Davis’ final argument is error by the ALJ in discounting her credibility. She contends the
ALJ relied only upon an analysis of the objective medical evidence rather than considering any other
of the pertinent factors set forth in Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984), the seminal
case on credibility determinations. While the ALJ did focus primarily on Davis’ objective medical
history, we find substantial evidence supports his credibility analysis. The ALJ indicated he
considered all of the Polaski factors, including Davis’ prior work history and observations of nonmedical third parties. While the ALJ did not expand on all of the relevant factors, he did note that
she worked through the alleged onset date, that she improved after starting a medication regimen,
and she received unemployment benefits through 2014.
These are all valid
considerations reflecting upon Davis’ credibility. Deference is typically given to an ALJ’s
credibility determination if the ALJ explicitly discounts the claimant’s testimony, giving good
reasons for doing so. See, e.g., Boyd v. Colvin, 831 F.3d 1015, 1021 (8th Cir. 2016). That is the case
here. There is no merit to this claim.
In summary, we find the ultimate decision of Colvin was supported by substantial evidence.
We are mindful that the Court’s task is not to review the record and arrive at an independent
decision, nor is it to reverse if we find some evidence to support a different conclusion. The test is
whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. See, e.g., Byes v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 913,
915 (8th Cir. 2012). This test is satisfied in this case.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the final decision of Colvin is affirmed and Davis’
complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of January, 2017.
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?