Turpin v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on February 3, 2014. (lw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
MELINDA DARLENE TURPIN
vs.

PLAINTIFF
Civil No. 2:12-cv-02262

CAROLYN W. COLVIN
Commissioner, Social Security Administration

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Melinda Darlene Turpin (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant to § 205(g) of Title II of the
Social Security Act (“The Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2010), seeking judicial review of a final
decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denying her
applications for a period of disability, Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”), and Supplemental
Security Income (“SSI”) under Titles II and XVI of the Act. The Parties have consented to the
jurisdiction of a magistrate judge to conduct any and all proceedings in this case, including
conducting the trial, ordering the entry of a final judgment, and conducting all post-judgment
proceedings. ECF No. 7.1 Pursuant to this authority, the Court issues this memorandum opinion and
orders the entry of a final judgment in this matter.
1.

Background:
Plaintiff protectively filed her disability applications on January 25, 2010. (Tr. 10, 106-116).

In those applications, Plaintiff alleges being disabled due to a broken back. (Tr. 179). Plaintiff
alleges an onset date of November 15, 2008. (Tr. 10, 106, 113). Her applications were denied
initially and again upon reconsideration.

(Tr. 48-51).

1

Thereafter, Plaintiff requested an

The docket numbers for this case are referenced by the designation “ECF No. __.” The
transcript pages for this case are referenced by the designation “Tr.”

1

administrative hearing on her applications, and this hearing request was granted. (Tr. 68-73).
On April 21, 2011, this hearing was held in Clarksville, Arkansas. (Tr. 25-47). Plaintiff was
present at this hearing and was represented by counsel. Id. Plaintiff and Vocational Expert (“VE”)
James Spragens testified at this hearing. Id. At this hearing, Plaintiff testified she was forty-five
(45) years old, which is defined as a “younger person” under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(c) (2008) (DIB)
and 20 C.F.R. § 416.963(c) (2008) (SSI). (Tr. 28). Plaintiff also testified she had obtained her high
school diploma and was trained as a Certified Nurses Aid (“CNA”). (Tr. 31).
After this hearing, on May 9, 2011, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision denying
Plaintiff’s applications for DIB and SSI. (Tr. 7-20). In this decision, the ALJ found Plaintiff met
the insured status requirements of the Act through December 31, 2013. (Tr. 12, Finding 1). The
ALJ determined Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity (“SGA”) since November
15, 2008, her alleged onset date. (Tr. 12, Finding 2). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had the
following severe impairments: mood disorder and degenerative disc disease. (Tr. 12, Finding 3).
The ALJ also determined Plaintiff’s impairments did not meet or medically equal the requirements
of any of the Listings of Impairments in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Regulations No. 4 (“Listings”).
(Tr. 12-14, Finding 4).
In this decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and determined her RFC.
(Tr. 14-18, Finding 5). First, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and found her
claimed limitations were not entirely credible. Id. Second, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained
the following RFC:
After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the
claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work as defined
in 20 CFR 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a) except the claimant can only occasionally
2

climb, balance, crawl, kneel, stoop and crouch. The claimant is also limited to work
where interpersonal contact is incidental to the work performed, the complexity of
the tasks is learned and performed by rote with few variables and little judgment
involved. Supervision required is simple, direct and concrete.
Id.
The ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s Past Relevant Work (“PRW”). (Tr. 18-19, Finding 6). The
ALJ determined Plaintiff’s PRW included work as a nurse’s aide and a trimmer. Id. Considering
her RFC, the ALJ found that person did not retain the capacity to perform this PRW. Id. The ALJ
then considered whether Plaintiff would be able to perform other work existing in significant
numbers in the national economy. (Tr. 19-20, Finding 10). The VE testified at the administrative
hearing regarding this issue. (Tr. 19, 43-47).
Considering a hypothetical individual with Plaintiff’s RFC, age, work experience, and other
limitations, the VE testified that person retained the capacity to perform representative occupations
such as (1) small product assembler with 84,000 such jobs in the United States and 4,200 such jobs
in Arkansas; (2) small product operator with 76,000 such jobs in the United States and 4,000 such
jobs in Arkansas; and (3) small product inspector with 41,000 such jobs in the United States and 800
such jobs in Arkansas. (Tr. 19).
Based upon this testimony, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform
other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. (Tr. 19-20, Finding 10).
Because Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform this other work, the ALJ determined she had not
been under a disability, as defined in the Act, from November 15, 2008 through the date of his
decision or through May 9, 2011. (Tr. 20, Finding 11).
Thereafter, Plaintiff requested the Appeals Council’s review of the ALJ’s unfavorable

3

decision. On September 6, 2012, the Appeals Council denied this request for review. (Tr. 1-3). On
November 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed the present appeal. ECF No. 1. The Parties consented to the
jurisdiction of this Court on December 12, 2012. ECF No. 7. Both Parties have filed appeal briefs.
ECF Nos. 10-11. This case is now ready for decision.
2.

Applicable Law:
In reviewing this case, this Court is required to determine whether the Commissioner’s

findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
(2010); Ramirez v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 576, 583 (8th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence is less than
a preponderance of the evidence, but it is enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to
support the Commissioner’s decision. See Johnson v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1145, 1147 (8th Cir. 2001).
As long as there is substantial evidence in the record that supports the Commissioner’s decision, the
Court may not reverse it simply because substantial evidence exists in the record that would have
supported a contrary outcome or because the Court would have decided the case differently. See
Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2001). If, after reviewing the record, it is possible
to draw two inconsistent positions from the evidence and one of those positions represents the
findings of the ALJ, the decision of the ALJ must be affirmed. See Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065,
1068 (8th Cir. 2000).
It is well-established that a claimant for Social Security disability benefits has the burden of
proving his or her disability by establishing a physical or mental disability that lasted at least one
year and that prevents him or her from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. See Cox v. Apfel,
160 F.3d 1203, 1206 (8th Cir. 1998); 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act defines
a “physical or mental impairment” as “an impairment that results from anatomical, physiological,
4

or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and
laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(3), 1382(3)(c). A plaintiff must show that
his or her disability, not simply his or her impairment, has lasted for at least twelve consecutive
months. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A).
To determine whether the adult claimant suffers from a disability, the Commissioner uses
the familiar five-step sequential evaluation. He determines: (1) whether the claimant is presently
engaged in a “substantial gainful activity”; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment that
significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities; (3)
whether the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals a presumptively disabling impairment
listed in the regulations (if so, the claimant is disabled without regard to age, education, and work
experience); (4) whether the claimant has the Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) to perform his
or her past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant cannot perform the past work, the burden shifts to
the Commissioner to prove that there are other jobs in the national economy that the claimant can
perform. See Cox, 160 F.3d at 1206; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)-(f). The fact finder only considers
the plaintiff’s age, education, and work experience in light of his or her RFC if the final stage of this
analysis is reached. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (2003).
3.

Discussion:
In her appeal brief, Plaintiff claims the ALJ’s disability determination is not supported by

substantial evidence in the record. ECF No. 10 at 7-17. Specifically, Plaintiff claims the following:
(1) the ALJ erred by failing to properly develop the evidence; (2) the ALJ erred by failing to consider
evidence which fairly detracted from his findings; (3) the ALJ erred by failing to apply the proper
legal standards; and (4) the ALJ did not satisfy his burden at Step Five of the sequential evaluation.
5

Id. Upon review, the Court finds the ALJ provided no basis for disregarding the findings of
Plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Russell B. Allison, M.D., an orthopaedist. The ALJ also erred by
failing to consider Plaintiff for at least a closed period of disability. Accordingly, the Court will only
address Plaintiff’s second argument for reversal.
In the present action, Plaintiff injured her back in November of 2008. (Tr. 283). After her
injury, she was treated by Dr. Allison at the Arkansas Orthopaedic Institute. (Tr. 278-283). As a
result of that accident, Dr. Allison diagnosed Plaintiff with a “T12 burst fracture.” (Tr. 278). Dr.
Allison continued to treat Plaintiff throughout 2008 and 2009. (Tr. 278-283).
On July 28, 2009, eight months after her accident, Dr. Allison examined Plaintiff and stated
she has “daily pain” and noted “even the slightest weather change causes her discomfort.” (Tr. 280).
During this examination, Dr. Allison noted that he did not think her back condition would improve.
Id. He stated “[h]er bone is completely healed and she has a curvature now that will always leave
her back off balance.” Id. Dr. Allison also “wrote her to be off for the next three months due to her
back pain.” Id. Indeed, Dr. Allison found Plaintiff should be released from work until November
9, 2009, nearly one year after her accident. (Tr. 287). Dr. Allison further noted that even when she
returned to work, she would have “permanent restrictions” of “no lifting,” “no bending,” and “no
stooping.” (Tr. 287).
In his opinion, the ALJ referenced Dr. Allison’s findings, stated they were entitled to “great
weight,” but then disregarded most of those findings when he assessed Plaintiff’s RFC. (Tr. 14-17).
In his opinion, the ALJ found Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform a wide range of sedentary
work (which would require some lifting) with the added restriction that she could only “occasionally
climb, balance, crawl, kneel, stoop and crouch.” (Tr. 14, Finding 5). The ALJ did not reference Dr.
Allison’s findings regarding Plaintiff’s inability to lift, inability to bend, and inability to stoop. Id.
6

The ALJ also did not provide a basis for disregarding those limitations. Id.
Further, the ALJ did not even consider that Plaintiff may be entitled to a closed period of
disability. Dr. Allison’s treatment records reflect that Plaintiff’s back injury likely satisfies the oneyear requirement for a disability. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A) (defining
“disability” as an “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medical
determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has
lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months”) (emphasis
added). Notably, she injured her back in November of 2008 and was completely restricted from
working until at least November of 2009. Accordingly, the ALJ also erred in failing to consider this
issue.
4.

Conclusion:
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that the decision of the ALJ, denying benefits

to Plaintiff, is not supported by substantial evidence and should be reverse and remanded. A
judgment incorporating these findings will be entered pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
52 and 58.
ENTERED this 3rd day of February 2014.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7