Robinson v. Social Security Administration

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The finding that Plaintiff is not disabled, for purposes of the Social Security Act, is AFFIRMED, and this case is DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere on 2/1/2008. (smb)

Download PDF
R o b i n s o n v. Social Security Administration D o c . 13 I N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E A S T E R N DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS W E S T E R N DIVISION M A R Y ROBINSON V. M I C H A E L J. ASTRUE, C o m m is s io n e r , S o c ia l Security Administration 1 No. 4:06CV01547-BD PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER P la in tif f brings this action for review of a final decision of the Commissioner of th e Social Security Administration (the "Commissioner") denying her claim for disability in s u ra n c e benefits and supplemental security income benefits. For reasons which follow, th e decision of the Administrative Law Judge 2 is AFFIRMED. I. Procedural History: Plaintiff Mary Robinson filed her applications for disability insurance benefits and s u p p le m e n ta l security income benefits on May 17, 2004 (Tr. 53A-53B, 209-12), alleging d is a b ility since April 6, 2004, due to fibromyalgia/chronic fatigue syndrome and d e p re ss io n (Tr. 53A, 55, 62, 209, 222). Her application was denied initially and upon Michael J. Astrue was sworn in as the Commissioner of Social Security on F e b ru a ry 12, 2007. He is therefore substituted for Jo Anne B. Barnhart pursuant to F ed .R .C iv. P . 25(d)(1). 2 1 T h e Honorable Garry L. Brewer. 1 re c o n sid e ra tio n . Plaintiff requested a hearing on September 20, 2004, and the ALJ held a h e a rin g on November 3, 2005. Ms. Robinson appeared at the hearing with her counsel. T h e ALJ issued his decision that Plaintiff was not disabled on June 27, 2006 (Tr. 8 -1 7 ), after finding that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to perform the full ra n g e of medium work. (Tr. 14) The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff could return to her p a st relevant work as a receptionist, which is classified as semi-skilled, requiring s e d e n ta ry exertion. (Tr. 16). The Appeals Council declined review on October 13, 2006 (T r. 3-6). Thus, the ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner. Plaintiff seeks judicial review under 42 U.S.C. 405(g). II. B a c k gro u n d : P la in tif f was thirty-three years old at the time of the hearing. She testified that she liv e d with her husband and three children, aged five to thirteen. (Tr. 223) She had a high s c h o o l education and a one-year associate's degree in computerized accounting from a v o c a tio n a l school. (Tr. 223) She had past relevant work experience as a receptionist, c ler k /ca sh ier , factory worker, and waitress. (Tr. 224-25) Ms. Robinson was five feet, tw o inches tall at the time of the hearing and weighed approximately 200 pounds. (Tr. 224) 2 III. F in d in g s of the ALJ: T h e ALJ considered Plaintiff's impairments by way of the familiar five-step s e q u e n tia l evaluation process.3 The first step involves a determination of whether the claim an t is involved in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(a)(4)(I); 4 1 6 .9 2 0 (a )(4 )(I) (2005). If the claimant is, benefits are denied, regardless of medical c o n d itio n , age, education or work experience. Id. at 404.1520(b); 416.920(b). In this c a se , the ALJ found that Ms. Robinson was not engaged in substantial gainful e m p lo ym e n t and that she had not been so engaged since the onset of her alleged d is a b ility. (Tr. 12) S te p 2 involves a determination of whether the claimant has an impairment or c o m b in a tio n of impairments which is "severe" and meets the duration requirement. Id. at 404.1520(a)(4)(ii); 416.920(a)(4)(ii). A "severe" impairment significantly limits a c la im a n t's ability to perform basic work activities. Id. at 404.1520(c); 416.920(c). The ALJ found that Plaintiff suffered from a severe impairment, fibromyalgia. (Tr.12) He found that Plaintiff's other complaints, including depression, were not severe. (Tr. 13) Step 3 involves a determination of whether the severe impairment meets or equals a listed impairment. Id., 404.1520(a)(4)(iii); 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If so, and the duration Because the ALJ found that Plaintiff could return to her past relevant work at step f o u r of the five-step process, he did not need to proceed to step five in the sequential a n a lysis , i.e. whether the claimant is able to make an adjustment to other work, given c la im a n t's age, education and work experience. 3 3 re q u ire m e n t is met, benefits are awarded. Id. If the claimant does not meet or equal a lis tin g , then a residual functional capacity assessment is made. Id., 404.1520(a)(4); 416.920(a)(4). The ALJ determined that Ms. Robinson did not meet or equal a listing a n d proceeded to make a functional capacity assessment. Step 4 involves a determination of whether the claimant has sufficient residual f u n c tio n a l capacity to perform past relevant work. Id., 404.1520(a)(4)(iv); 4 1 6 .9 2 0 (a )( 4 )( iv ). If so, benefits are denied, and the analysis ends. Id. The ALJ d eterm ined that Plaintiff could return to her past work as a receptionist. (Tr. 16) Because the ALJ found that Ms. Robinson could perform her past relevant work, she was d e ter m in e d not to be disabled under the Social Security Act (the "Act"). The ALJ did f in d that Plaintiff had the residual functioning capacity to perform the full range of m e d iu m work. (Tr. 14) He found no evidence of loss of fine dexterity or the inability to s it for long periods, and concluded that Plaintiff also could perform the full range of light an d sedentary work. 4 (Tr. 14) T h e ALJ considered Plaintiff's subjective complaints of pain and fatigue, but f o u n d these complaints to be not fully credible. (Tr. 15) This conclusion was based on in c o n sis te n c ie s in the record (Tr. 15); Plaintiff's self-reported daily activities (Tr. 15, 2 0 3 ); a lack of medical evidence to support the Plaintiff's complaints of disabling pain; Plaintiff's past relevant work as a receptionist is considered semi-skilled, s e d e n ta ry work. (Tr. 16, citing DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES (DOT) Code # 2 3 7 .3 6 7 - 0 3 8 ) 4 4 la c k of prescription pain medications (Tr. 15, 58, 75, 226); the psychological report of S a m Boyd, Ph.D. (Tr.201 - 07); Plaintiff's minimal work history (Tr. 15; 222; 142); and th e opinions of state agency medical consultants (Tr. 16; 134-41). Plaintiff contends that: (1) there was no medical evidence to support the ALJ's a ss e ss m e n t that Ms. Robinson maintained the residual functional capacity to perform her p a st work as a receptionist; (2) the ALJ's credibility determination was not supported by th e record and that he failed to consider all relevant factors as set out in Polaski v. H e c kle r, 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984); and (3) the ALJ failed to develop the record p ro p e rly. Defendant argues that the burden was on Plaintiff to prove that she was d isab led and that the record supports the ALJ's finding that Plaintiff was able to perform h e r past work as a receptionist. IV . A n a l y s is : A. S ta n d a r d of Review In reviewing the ALJ's decision, this Court must determine whether there is s u b s ta n tia l evidence in the administrative record to support the Commissioner's decision. 42 U.S.C. 405(g). "If the decision of the Commissioner is supported by substantial e v id e n c e on the record as a whole," that decision must be affirmed. Harris v. Barnhart, 3 5 6 F.3d 926, 928 (8th Cir. 2004). "Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable m in d would find adequate to support the ALJ's conclusion." Nicola v. Astrue, 480 F.3d 8 8 5 , 886 (8th Cir. 2007). The Court "must consider the evidence which detracts from the 5 C o m m is s io n e r's decision, as well as the evidence in support of the decision," but the d e c is io n cannot be reversed, "simply because some evidence supports a conclusion other th a n that of the Commissioner." Pelkey v. Barhart, 433 F3d 575, 578 (8th Cir. 2006). The ALJ is responsible for deciding fact questions, including the credibility of a c la im a n t's subjective testimony about her limitations. Gregg v. Barnhart, 354 F.3d 710, 7 1 3 (8th Cir. 2003). "If an ALJ explicitly discredits the claimant's testimony and gives g o o d reason for doing so, [the court] will normally defer to the ALJ's credibility d e te rm in a tio n ." Id. at 714; see also Browning v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 817, 821 (8th Cir. 1 9 9 2 ) ("We will not disturb the decision of an ALJ who seriously considers, but for good re a s o n s explicitly discredits, a claimant's testimony of disabling pain."). Thus, this Court's review is limited. The only question for this Court is whether th e re is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the ALJ's conclusion that M s. Robinson is not disabled under the Act. B. M e d ic a l Evidence P lain tiff notes that there must be "some medical evidence" to support the ALJ's d e te rm in a tio n that Plaintiff retains the functional capacity to perform her past relevant w o rk. (Plaintiff's Brief at 9) She argues that, "there is none." (Plaintiff's Brief at 10) A r e v ie w of the medical evidence in this case, however, supports the ALJ's finding that Ms. R o b in s o n does have fibromyalgia, but that the condition is not disabling for purposes of th e Act. 6 P e rtin e n t medical records reveal that Plaintiff went to the White River Rural Health Center, Inc. ("Health Center") on April 8, 2004, complaining of fatigue and of " sle e p in g a lot." (Tr. 151) She returned to the Health Center on May 3, 2004, still c o m p la in in g of fatigue. (Tr. 149) On July 15, 2004, she returned to the Health Center c o m p la in in g of joint pain, restless legs, chronic fatigue, and arms and legs shaking out of c o n tr o l. (Tr. 147) She returned to the Health Center again on July 23, 2004, to discuss re su lts of the laboratory tests. (Tr. 145) Medical records indicate that the physician "re v iew ed very normal labs," but that "[patient] wants to pursue work up." (Tr. 145) Plaintiff was then referred to the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences ("UAMS") fo r further tests. (Tr. 145) Plaintiff saw Dr. Eleanor Lipsmeyer and Dr. David Carrouth at UAMS. (Tr. 1868 9 ) Plaintiff complained of fatigue, generalized pain since February of 2004, "poor s le e p ," pain in her hips and hands, and some swelling in her hands. (Tr. 186) There was n o mention of arms and legs shaking out of control. Dr. Lipsmeyer found that Plaintiff had "full range of motion of all the joints." (Tr. 1 8 6 ) She also found "no active synovitis or synovial proliferation." (Tr. 186-87) "There [ w a s] good grip and curl of the hands." (Tr. 187) "Tender points [were] present 18/18." (Tr. 187) Dr. Lipsmeyer diagnosed depression and fibromyalgia syndrome and re c o m m e n d e d that Plaintiff take prescription Zoloft for depression, ibuprofen for pain, a n d Flexeril for bedtime sleep. (Tr. 187) Significantly, Dr. Lipsmeyer also 7 re c o m m e n d e d that Plaintiff increase her exercise. (Tr. 187) Dr. Lipsmeyer did not re c o m m e n d that Plaintiff return to UAMS, and she did not recommend any prescription p a in medication. (Tr. 187) Tests conducted at Dr. Lipsmeyer's direction indicated: (1) n o acute cardiopulmonary process; (2) unremarkable cervical spine series; (3) u n rem ark ab le bony pelvis; and (4) unremarkable bilateral knees. (Tr. 193-94) Nothing in these medical records compels a finding that Ms. Robinson is so a f f e c te d by fibromyalgia that she is unable to function as a receptionist. Plaintiff takes e x c ep tio n to the finding that she could perform a full range of medium work and argues that no doctor had concluded that Robinson could perform medium work. (Plaintiff's B r ie f at 9) She concedes, however, that "agency doctors," that is, non-treating doctors, d id find that Plaintiff could perform medium work in July and August of 2004. (Tr. 1344 4 ) Plaintiff makes much of the fact that this assessment was made when Plaintiff had b e e n diagnosed with chronic fatigue, but not yet with fibromyalgia. (Plaintiff's Brief at 1 0 ) Regardless of the label attached to Plaintiff's condition, whether fibromyalgia or c h ro n ic fatigue syndrome, the examination by "agency doctors" was conducted after P la in tif f had complained of disabling pain and fatigue, and the results were that Plaintiff c o u ld perform medium work. (Tr. 134-44) The relevant question is not what a condition is called, but rather whether symptoms prevent the Plaintiff from working. P la in tif f complains that she is unable to lift 50 pounds or frequently lift or carry 25 p o u n d s , as required for medium work. (Plaintiff's Brief at 9) While the ALJ found that 8 P la in tif f could perform the full range of medium work, the fact is that Plaintiff's past re le v a n t work as a receptionist is considered "sedentary" work. Sedentary work involves lif tin g no more than 10 pounds at a time and occasionally lifting or carrying articles like d o c k e t files, ledgers, and small tools. 20 C.F.R. 404.1567(a). Furthermore, there is nothing in any of the medical records to indicate that Ms. R o b inso n must, or even should, limit her physical activity. To the contrary, Dr. L ip sm e ye r, a treating physician, recommended that Plaintiff increase her level of activity a n d specifically recommended that Plaintiff begin water aerobics. (Tr. 187) C. C r e d ib i lity Determination and Inconsistencies in the Record T h e ALJ based his finding that Plaintiff's subjective complaints were not fully c re d ib le in part on inconsistencies in the record. (Tr. 15) A review of the record reveals a number of inconsistencies. For example, Plaintiff told Dr. Boyd that she "sleeps thro u g h the night" (Tr. 203), but told Dr. Lipsmeyer she had "very poor sleep" (Tr. 186) She complained of decreased appetite (Tr. 186), but told Dr. Boyd her "appetite [was] n o rm a l," and that she had experienced "no recent weight gain or loss." (Tr. 203) When th e ALJ asked Plaintiff whether there had been "any significant change in [her] weight in th e last year or two," she answer that she had gained about 35 pounds and that her weight " g o e s up and down." (Tr. 224) Plaintiff testified at the hearing that she had a problem g rip p in g . "I can't grip." (Tr. 226) However, Dr. Lipsmeyer found that Plaintiff had a f u ll range of motion of all the joints, and that Plaintiff had "good grip and curl of the 9 h a n d s." (Tr. 187) These inconsistencies were properly considered by the ALJ in d i sc o u n t in g Plaintiff's subjective complaints. P la in tif f 's self-reported level of activity also supports the ALJ's finding that P la in tif f 's subjective complaints regarding fatigue and pain were not fully credible. She to ld Dr. Boyd that she spent her days taking care of her three children, doing household c h o re s, doing shopping, and taking naps." (Tr. 203) She also reported attending church, w a tch in g televison, and going to baseball games. (Tr. 70) The ALJ was well within b o u n d s to take these inconsistencies into consideration when evaluating Plaintiff's s u b je c tiv e complaints. Furthermore, the ALJ's decision includes a careful review of factors set out in P o la s k i v. Heckler, supra. (Tr. 14-15) Plaintiff points to medical evidence that Dr. L ip s m e ye r's examination revealed that Plaintiff had eighteen out of eighteen "tender p o in ts" present. (Tr. 187) Plaintiff goes on to argue that a person is diagnosed with fib rom yalg ia with as few as eleven trigger points. (Plaintiff's Brief at 13) Plaintiff's a rg u m e n t misses the point. The ALJ found that Plaintiff had fibromyalgia, and that it was " se v e re " for purposes of the Act. Finding that a claimant has a diagnosed illness is not th e same as finding that the condition is disabling in that person. See Stormo v. Barnhart, 3 7 7 F.3d 801, 807 (8th Cir. 2004)("That a claimant has medically-documented im p a irm e n ts does not perforce result in a finding of disability.") 10 D. F a i lu r e to Develop the Record P la in tif f also complains that the ALJ failed to develop the record, arguing that the A L J should have sought additional information from Plaintiff's treating physicians. (Plaintiff's Brief at 16-17) Plaintiff is correct in her statement that an ALJ has a duty to f u lly and fairly develop the record. Smith v. Barnhart, 435 F.3d 926, 930 (8th Cir. 2 0 0 6 )(" A social security hearing is a non-adversarial proceeding, and the ALJ has a duty to fully develop the record.") However, "Plaintiff bears a heavy burden in showing the re c o rd has been inadequately developed. [She] must show both a failure to develop n e c es s a ry evidence and unfairness or prejudice from that failure." Combs v. Astrue, 243 F e d .A p p x . 200, 204 (8th Cir. 2007). In this case, the ALJ was able to make an informed decision from the available re c o rd . There is no indication in this case that the ALJ was unable to make an assessment re g a rd in g Ms. Robinson's alleged disability, and his decision is supported by substantial e v id e n c e. See Tellez v. Barnhart, 403 F.3d 953, 956-57 (8th Cir. 2005). This Court's c o n f id e n c e in the ALJ's thoroughness is bolstered by the fact that the ALJ did send P la in tif f for a psychological consult after the hearing because he obviously believed that th e record was insufficient to determine what affect Plaintiff's depression had on her ab ility to work. (Tr. 229-231). 11 V. Conclusion: A careful review of the record as a whole reveals substantial support for the ALJ's c o n c lu s io n that Mary K. Robinson is not disabled under the Act and that she is capable of return ing to her past work as a receptionist, which is classified as semi-skilled, sedentary w o rk . Accordingly, the finding that Plaintiff is not disabled, for purposes of the Social S ec u rity Act is AFFIRMED, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. D A T E D this 1st day of February, 2008. ___________________________________ U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12

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?