Davenport v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on February 4, 2014. (mll)
N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
KINDA M. DAVENPORT
Civil No. 2:13-cv-02013
Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Kinda Davenport (“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
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) and Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) 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. 10.1 Pursuant to this authority, the Court
issues this memorandum opinion and orders the entry of a final judgment in this matter.
Plaintiff protectively filed her disability applications on April 12, 2010. (Tr. 12, 116-128).
Plaintiff alleges being disabled due to Hepatitis C, asthma, paranoid schizophrenia, degenerative disc
disease, ADHD, broken pelvis, and herniated disc. (Tr. 157). Plaintiff alleges an onset date of
January 24, 2009. (Tr. 158). These applications were denied initially and again upon reconsideration.
(Tr. 66-72, 77-80).
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.”
Thereafter, Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on her applications, and this hearing
request was granted. (Tr. 82). An administrative hearing was held on August 23, 2011. (Tr. 28-61).
At the administrative hearing, Plaintiff was present and was represented by attorney David Harp. Id.
Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s witness Robert Holcomb, and Vocational Expert (“VE”) Montie Lumpkin,
testified at this hearing. Id. On the date of this hearing, Plaintiff was forty-three (43) years old, which
is defined as a “younger person” under 20 C.F.R. § 416.963(c) (2008) (SSI) and 20 C.F.R. §
404.1563(c) (2008) (DIB). (Tr. 48). Plaintiff also testified at this hearing she had obtained a GED.
On November 10, 2011, subsequent to the hearing, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision
on Plaintiff’s applications. (Tr. 12-23). In this decision, the ALJ determined Plaintiff met the insured
status requirements of the Act through September 30, 2010. (Tr. 14, Finding 1). The ALJ also
determined Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity (“SGA”) since June 24, 2009,
her alleged onset date. (Tr. 14, Finding 2).
The ALJ determined Plaintiff had severe impairments including osteoarthritis of the sacroiliac
(SI) joint and pelvis status post pelvic fracture, chronic low back pain, degenerative disc disease of
the cervical spine, hepatitis C, asthma, schizoaffective disorder, and a history of narcotic abuse and
dependence. (Tr. 14, 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. 14, Finding 4).
In this decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and determined her
Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”). (Tr. 16-21, Finding 5). First, the ALJ indicated he evaluated
Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and found her claimed limitations were not entirely credible. Id.
Second, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the RFC to perform light work except cannot climb,
kneel, crouch, or crawl; can only occasionally balance and stoop; and must avoid concentrated
exposure to temperature extremes, humidity, fumes, odors, dusts, gasses, and poor ventilation.
Further, Plaintiff is able to understand, remember, and carry out simple, rote, repetitive tasks
involving few variables and little judgment in an environment where interpersonal contact is
incidental to the tasks performed, and where instructions and supervision for tasks are simple, direct,
and concrete. (Tr. 16, Finding 5).
The ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s Past Relevant Work (“PRW”). (Tr. 21, Finding 6). The ALJ
determined Plaintiff was unable to perform her PRW of telephone solicitor, hand packer, and
babysitter. Id. The ALJ, however, also determined there was other work existing in significant
numbers in the national economy Plaintiff could perform. (Tr. 22-23, Finding 10). The ALJ based
his determination upon the testimony of the VE. Id. Specifically, the VE testified that given all
Plaintiff’s vocational factors, a hypothetical individual would be able to perform the requirements of
a representative occupation such as a machine tender with approximately 2,607 such jobs in the
region and 250,607 such jobs in the nation, and production and assembly worker with approximately
10,969 such jobs in the region and 571,519 such jobs in the nation Id. Based upon this finding, the
ALJ determined Plaintiff had not been under a disability as defined by the Act since June 24, 2009.
(Tr. 23, Finding 11).
On December 1, 2011, Plaintiff requested the Appeals Council’s review of the ALJ’s
unfavorable decision. (Tr. 7-8). On November 15, 2012, the Appeals Council declined to review this
disability determination. (Tr. 1-3). On January 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed the present appeal. ECF No.
1. The Parties consented to the jurisdiction of this Court on February 6, 2013. ECF No. 10. Both
Parties have filed appeal briefs. ECF Nos. 12, 15. This case is now ready for decision.
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)
(2006); 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, 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).
In her appeal brief, Plaintiff claims the ALJ’s disability determination is not supported by
substantial evidence in the record and should be reversed and remanded. ECF No. 12, Pgs. 10-16.
Specifically, Plaintiff claims the ALJ erred (1) in failing to develop the record, (2) in his RFC
determination, (3) in his Step 5 analysis. Id. In response, the Defendant argues the ALJ did not err
in any of his findings. ECF No. 15. Because this Court finds the ALJ erred in his RFC determination
and by failing to fully evaluate Plaintiff’s Global Assessment of Functioning (“GAF”) scores, this
Court finds Plaintiff’s case must be reversed and remanded.
In social security cases, it is important for an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s GAF score or scores
in determining whether that claimant is disabled due to a mental impairment. GAF scores range from
0 to 100. Am. Psychiatric Ass’n, Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR)
34 (4th ed., text rev. 2000). The Eighth Circuit has repeatedly held GAF scores must be carefully
evaluated when determining a claimant’s RFC. See, e.g., Conklin v. Astrue, 360 F. App’x. 704, 707
(8th Cir. 2010) (reversing and remanding an ALJ’s disability determination in part because the ALJ
failed to consider the claimant’s GAF scores of 35 and 40); Pates-Fires v. Astrue, 564 F.3d 935, 94445 (8th Cir. 2009) (holding that the ALJ’s RFC finding was not supported by substantial evidence in
the record as a whole, in part due to the ALJ’s failure to discuss or consider numerous GAF scores
Indeed, a GAF score at or below 40 should be carefully considered because such a low score
reflects “a major impairment in several areas such as work, family relations, judgment, or mood.”
Conklin, 360 F. App’x at 707 n.2 (quoting Am. Psychiatric Ass’n, Diagnostic & Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) 34 (4th ed., text rev. 2000)). A GAF score of 40 to 50 also
indicates a claimant suffers from severe symptoms. Specifically, a person with that GAF score suffers
from “[s]erious symptoms (e.g., suicidal ideation, severe obsessional rituals, frequent shoplifting) OR
any serious impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning (e.g., no friends, unable to keep
a job).” Am. Psychiatric Ass’n, Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR)
34 (4th ed., text rev. 2000).
In the present action, Plaintiff underwent a Mental Diagnostic Evaluation by Dr. Patricia Walz
on July 21, 2010. (Tr. 391). As a part of that examination, Plaintiff was assessed as having a GAF
score of 35-45. (Tr. 395). This GAF score represent “serious symptoms.” Dr. Walz diagnosed
Plaintiff with schizoaffective disorder. Id.
The ALJ failed to discuss or even mentioned Plaintiff’s GAF score in his opinion. It was the
ALJ’s responsibility to evaluate Plaintiff’s GAF score and make a finding regarding its reliability as
a part of the underlying administrative proceeding. See Conklin, 360 F. App’x at 707. Indeed, it is
especially important that the ALJ address low GAF scores where, as in this case, Plaintiff has been
diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder.
Accordingly, because the ALJ was required to evaluate this score and provide a reason for
discounting the low GAF score but did not do so, Plaintiff’s case must be reversed and remanded for
further development of the record on this issue. See Pates-Fires, 564 F.3d at 944-45.
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that the decision of the ALJ, denying benefits
to Plaintiff, must be reversed and remanded. A judgment incorporating these findings will be entered
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52 and 58.
ENTERED this 4th day of February 2014.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
U.S. 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?