Hart v. Social Security Administration

Filing 10

ORDER affirming the final decision of the Commissioner; Judgment will be entered in favor of the Commissioner. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edie R. Ervin on 6/5/2024. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
NORTHERN DIVISION
BILLY RAY HART
V.

PLAINTIFF
No. 3:24-CV-00022-ERE

MARTIN O’MALLEY,
Commissioner of Social Security

DEFENDANT
ORDER1

Plaintiff Billy Ray Hart appeals the Social Security Administration
Commissioner’s final decision denying his application for disability benefits. For
the reasons set out below, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
I.

Background
On April 5, 2021, Mr. Billy Ray Hart protectively filed an application for

benefits due to a learning disability, illiteracy, poor memory, a bad knee, and
depression. Tr. 10, 222.
Mr. Hart’s claim was denied initially and upon reconsideration. At Mr.
Hart’s request, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) held a telephonic hearing on
October 4, 2022, where Mr. Hart appeared with his lawyer, and the ALJ heard
testimony from Mr. Hart and a vocational expert (“VE”). Tr. 39-64. The ALJ
issued a decision on February 16, 2023, finding that Mr. Hart was not disabled. Tr.
1

The parties consented in writing to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge.

Doc. 4.

1

7-30. The Appeals Council denied Mr. Hart’s request for review, making the ALJ’s
decision the Commissioner’s final decision. Tr. 1-6.
Mr. Hart, who was fifty years old at the time of the hearing, completed tenth
grade and has past relevant work experience as an apartment maintenance man. Tr.
44, 58.
II.

The ALJ’s Decision2
The ALJ found that Mr. Hart had not engaged in substantial gainful activity

since December 1, 2018, the alleged onset date. Tr. 12. The ALJ also concluded
that Mr. Hart had the following severe impairments: major depressive disorder,
borderline intellectual functioning, generalized anxiety disorder, obesity, and
remote right knee anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Id. However, the ALJ
concluded that Mr. Hart did not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that met or equaled an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404,
Subpart P, Appendix 1. Tr. 13.
According to the ALJ, Mr. Hart had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”)
to perform light work, with the following limitations: (1) only occasional climbing
of ramps, stairs, ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; (2) occasional kneeling, crouching,
2

The ALJ followed the required sequential analysis to determine: (1) whether the
claimant was engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if not, whether the claimant had a severe
impairment; (3) if so, whether the impairment (or combination of impairments) met or equaled a
listed impairment; and (4) if not, whether the impairment (or combination of impairments)
prevented the claimant from performing past relevant work; and (5) if so, whether the
impairment (or combination of impairments) prevented the claimant from performing any other
jobs available in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)-(g).

2

and crawling; (3) no right lower extremity foot-control-operation duties; (4) only
simple, but not complex, instructions for work that requires no more than
occasional changes to the workplace setting; and (5) no more than occasional
interaction with the general public. Tr. 17.
In response to hypothetical questions incorporating the above limitations, the
VE testified that a substantial number of potential jobs were available in the
national economy, including poultry dresser and poultry killer. Tr. 25, 60-61.
Accordingly, the ALJ determined that Mr. Hart was not disabled.
III.

Discussion
A.

Standard of Review

In this appeal, the Court must review the Commissioner’s decision for legal
error and determine whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence on
the record as a whole. Brown v. Colvin, 825 F.3d 936, 939 (8th Cir. 2016) (citing
Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 922, 929 (8th Cir. 2010)). “Substantial evidence” in
this context means “enough that a reasonable mind would find [the evidence]
adequate to support the ALJ’s decision.” Slusser v. Astrue, 557 F.3d 923, 925 (8th
Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). In making this determination, the Court must
consider not only evidence that supports the Commissioner’s decision, but also
evidence that supports a contrary outcome. Milam v. Colvin, 794 F.3d 978, 983
(8th Cir. 2015). The Court will not reverse the Commissioner’s decision, however,
3

“merely because substantial evidence exists for the opposite decision.” Long v.
Chater, 108 F.3d 185, 187 (8th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted).
B.

Mr. Hart’s Arguments for Reversal.

Mr. Hart contends that the Commissioner’s decision is not supported by
substantial evidence, because the ALJ erred by: (1) finding an RFC that is not
supported by the record; and (2) presenting hypotheticals that did not account for
all of Mr. Hart’s limitations. Doc. 7 at 23, 27. After carefully reviewing the record
as a whole, the undersigned affirms the Commissioner.
C.

Analysis
1.

The RFC Finding is Supported by the Record as a Whole.

Mr. Hart contends that the ALJ’s RFC finding is not supported by the
record. Doc. 7 at 23. Specifically, Mr. Hart points out that light work requires him
to be able to stand and walk for long periods of time, but he has had knee problems
since, at least, 2014. Id. Yet, ten months after his ACL surgery he complained
about only climbing and squatting without a brace; but he, reportedly, “did great in
his brace.” Tr. 336. The ALJ properly noted that Mr. Hart consistently had “normal
gait, no swelling in his right knee, and no other significant musculoskeletal or
physical abnormalities or complaints and his symptoms appear to have resolved
with conservative treatment.” Tr. 19, 23.

4

Also rebutting the severity of his alleged inability to perform the walking
required for light work, Mr. Hart was “not interested in formal therapy” and “not
interested in an injection for his inflammation . . . .” Tr. 337. Rather, he chose only
home exercises and a steroid pack. Additionally, although he repeatedly has
complained of knee pain over the years, it has been conservatively treated with
ibuprofen, Voltaren gel, and Biofreeze, and he has not required an assistive device
for mobility. Tr. 13, 19-23, 401, 417, 421, 424, 426, 484. On June 28, 2022, Mr.
Hart reported that his right knee pain is worse on his more active days but
“refus[ed] any medications for pain relief.” Tr. 484. Mr. Hart’s conservative
treatment is inconsistent with disabling knee pain. Swarthout v. Kijakazi, 35 F.4th
608, 612 (8th Cir. 2022) (“The ALJ also properly cited Swarthout’s conservative
treatment plan and resistance to treatment as factors that undermined her claim of
severe disabling conditions.”).
Mr. Hart bears the burden of proving his RFC, which represents the most he
can do despite the combined effects of his credible limitations. Pearsall v.
Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1217 (8th Cir. 2001). “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 [the] claimant’s own
descriptions of his limitations.” Id. “[T]here is no requirement that an RFC finding

5

be supported by a specific medical opinion.” Hensley v. Colvin, 829 F.3d 926, 932
(8th Cir. 2016).
The ALJ also considered Mr. Hart’s activities of daily living, noting that he
“prepares simple meals, drives, shops in stores, counts change, helps care for his
dog, lives and socializes with his wife, attends appointments, and attends to his
personal needs and grooming without assistance or special reminders.” Tr. 15.
Additionally, in mid-2022 he went to the casino with his wife without issue and
planned to take a road trip to Alabama. Tr. 467, 470. “Because [Mr. Hart] could
undertake activities inside and outside of [his] house, drive, and interact with other
people, it was not unreasonable for the ALJ to discount [his] credibility as to [his]
reports of the severity of [his] symptoms.” Adamczyk v. Saul, 817 F. App’x 287,
291 (8th Cir. 2020)
Mr. Hart also argues that the ALJ failed to account for his memory
problems. Doc. 7 at 26. However, the ALJ noted that Mr. Hart’s “memory was
intact, and his . . . examiners frequently did not note any significant cognitive
abnormalities, confusion, or forgetfulness during their examinations.” Although
there is some evidence of “[m]ild cognitive impairment with memory loss,” the
ALJ’s finding is consistent with the medical records, which often reported normal
memory. Tr. 417, 419, 421, 441, 452, 478, 482, 486, 488.

6

The RFC finding reflected those limitations which the ALJ found to be
credible, and it is supported by the medical evidence as a whole.
2.

Hypothetical Questions

Mr. Hart argues that the ALJ’s hypothetical questions did not account for his
borderline intelligence, specifically his illiteracy, or his moderately limited ability
to maintain concentration, persistence, and pace. Doc. 9 at 27, 34-35.
The ALJ limited Mr. Hart to only simple, but not complex, instructions for
work that requires no more than occasional changes to the workplace setting and
no more than occasional interaction with the general public.
An ALJ’s RFC and hypothetical only needs to include all credible
limitations the ALJ finds are established by the evidence. Buckner v. Astrue, 646
F.3d 549, 560 (8th Cir. 2011). The non-exertional limitations clearly account for
Mr. Hart’s borderline intelligence and illiteracy, and these limitations would not
have a practical effect on his ability to perform the jobs of poultry dresser and
poultry cleaner. The ALJ noted that although Mr. Hart claimed to be illiterate and
have memory problems, his examinations “did not note any significant cognitive
abnormalities, confusion, or forgetfulness . . .” and they did not limit his activities
of daily living. Tr. 14. In fact, at the hearing, Mr. Hart’s lawyer described him as
being able to read and write at a second-grade level. Tr. 43. Additionally, if Mr.
Hart’s attorney believed that the hypotheticals contained insufficient non7

exertional limitations, he could have raised the issue in follow-up questioning, but
he did not. Instead, he focused on whether the jobs would continue to exist if
someone got a hand cramp after twenty minutes or suffered from a swelling knee.
Tr. 62.
The hypothetical reflected the limitations which the ALJ found to be
credible and was supported by the medical evidence as a whole.
IV.

Conclusion
The ALJ applied proper legal standards in evaluating Mr. Hart’s claims, and

substantial evidence supports the decision to deny benefits.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Commissioner’s decision is affirmed
and judgment will be entered in favor of the Commissioner.
Dated 5 June 2024.

____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8