Johnson v. Social Security Administration
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER affirming the Commissioner's decision and dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe on 9/17/2014. (mcz)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner, Social Security
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Jureasa Johnson, appeals the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration (the “Commissioner”) denying her claims for disability insurance benefits
(“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act (the “Act”) and for supplemental security income
(“SSI”) benefits under Title XVI of the Act. For reasons set out below, the decision of the
Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
On April 26, 2011, Ms. Johnson protectively filed for DIB and SSI benefits due to chronic
back pain, nerve problems, poor blood flow, right leg pain, hearing loss, and partial right thumb
amputation. (Tr. 150) Ms. Johnson’s claims were denied initially and upon reconsideration. At Ms.
Johnson’s request, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) held a hearing on May 4, 2012, where Ms.
Johnson appeared with her lawyer. At the hearing, the ALJ heard testimony from Ms. Johnson and
a vocational expert (“VE”). (Tr. 34-63)
The ALJ issued a decision on June 20, 2012, finding that Ms. Johnson was not disabled under
the Act. (Tr. 18-27) The Appeals Council denied Ms. Johnson’s request for review, making the
ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision. (Tr. 1-4)
Ms. Johnson, who was forty-nine years old at the time of the hearing, has a GED and past
relevant work as an administrative assistant at a hospital. (Tr. 37, 60)
DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE1
The ALJ found that Ms. Johnson had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since
May 31, 2005, and she had the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease post remote
laminectomy, morbid obesity, and major depressive disorder. (Tr. 20) However, the ALJ found that
Ms. Johnson did not have an impairment or combination of impairments meeting or equaling an
impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.2 (Id.)
According to the ALJ, Ms. Johnson has the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform
light work, except she can only occasionally climb, balance, stoop, bend, crouch, kneel, and crawl.
She also is limited to work where interpersonal contact is incidental to the work performed;
complexity of tasks is learned and performed by rote with little judgment and few variables; and
supervision required is simple, direct, and concrete. (Tr. 23) The VE testified that a job available
with these limitations was housekeeper. (Tr. 61) Accordingly, the ALJ determined that Ms. Johnson
could perform a significant number of jobs existing in the national economy, and found that she was
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. §§ 416.920(a)-(g) and 404.1520(a)-(g).
420 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925, and 416.926.
Standard of Review
In reviewing the Commissioner’s decision, this Court must determine whether there is
substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the decision.3 Substantial evidence is “less
than a preponderance, but sufficient for reasonable minds to find it adequate to support the
In reviewing the record as a whole, the Court must consider both evidence that detracts from
the Commissioner’s decision and evidence that supports the decision; but, the decision cannot be
reversed “simply because some evidence may support the opposite conclusion.”5
Ms. Johnson’s Argument for Reversal
Ms. Johnson asserts the Commissioner’s decision should be reversed because it failed to
properly weigh the September 21, 2012, medical source statement. (Doc. No. 14)
The Appeals Council indicated that it considered “the additional evidence listed on the
enclosed Order,” which included the medical source statement. (Tr. 1, 5) Yet, there are several
reasons the statement was given little weight and the Council upheld the ALJ’s decision:6
This statement was submitted three months after the ALJ issued his decision.
Based on the records in the file, the statement was made six months after Ms.
Johnson last visited Dr. Washington, which appears to have been March 2012. (Tr. 272)
Boettcher v. Astrue, 652 F.3d 860, 863 (8th Cir. 2011); 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Id. (citing Guilliams v. Barnhart, 393 F.3d 798, 801 (8th Cir. 2005)).
Id. (citing Pelkey v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 575, 578 (8th Cir. 2006)).
Anderson v. Astrue, 696 F.3d 790, 793 (8th Cir. 2012) (holding that an ALJ may discount
or even disregard the opinions of a treating physician, when they are inconsistent or where other
medical assessments are better supported).
The limitations from the medical statement were properly included in the
RFC. Specifically, the ALJ limited Ms. Johnson to work where the “complexity of tasks is learned
and performed by rote with little judgment and few variables as well as simple, direct, and concrete
supervision.” (Tr. 23)
The statement contradicts Dr. Washington’s own treatment notes. First, the
medical source statement indicates that Ms. Johnson had “marked” limitations in understanding,
remembering, and carrying out complex instructions and “extreme” limitations with making
judgments on complex work-related decisions. (Tr. 303) It also noted that her “ability to focus and
concentrate is felt to be poor.” However, Dr. Washington’s treatment notes repeatedly indicated that
Ms. Johnson’s memory, concentration, impulse control, reasoning, insight, and judgment were all
grossly intact. (Tr. 273, 278, 281) The statement noted that sometimes Ms. Johnson’s “hygiene is
inadequate” but treatment notes repeatedly indicated that grooming was “adequate/appropriate.” (Tr.
272, 275, 277, 280, 305) Finally, the medical statement suggested that Ms. Johnson has auditory
hallucinations, but the only record of this was in November 2011, and since that time she has
explicitly denied any auditory hallucinations. (Tr. 275, 277, 282, 305)
It also appears that some of her depression issues, and lower GAF scores, are
situational, e.g., she was fighting with her boyfriend, had a pet who just died, and was dealing with
withdrawals from prescription medication. (Tr. 282, 287)
The Court has reviewed the entire record, including the briefs, the ALJ’s decision, the
transcript of the hearing, and the medical and other evidence. There is sufficient evidence in the
record as a whole to support the Commissioner’s decision.
Accordingly, the Commissioner’s decision is affirmed and Ms. Johnson’s Complaint is
dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of September, 2014.
JOE J. VOLPE
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?