Moore v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Erin L. Wiedemann on July 12, 2018. (tg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HARRISON DIVISION
SALENIA L. MOORE
PLAINTIFF
v.
CIVIL NO. 17-3035
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Commissioner
Social Security Administration
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Salenia L. Moore, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking
judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
(Commissioner) denying her claims for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits
(DIB) under the provisions of Title II of the Social Security Act (Act). In this judicial
review, the Court must determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative
record to support the Commissioner's decision. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
I.
Procedural Background:
Plaintiff protectively filed her current application for DIB on May 23, 2014, alleging
an inability to work since May 22, 2014, due to fibromyalgia, myofascial pain syndrome,
costochondritis and an arthritic neck. (Tr. 80, 160). An administrative hearing was held on
November 10, 2015, at which Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified. (Tr. 36-78).
By written decision dated March 25, 2016, the ALJ found that during the relevant
time period, Plaintiff had an impairment or combination of impairments that were severe.
(Tr. 20).
Specifically, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments:
costochondritis, degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine status/post laminectomy in
1
2006, degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine with bulge at C3-4, fibromyalgia,
depression, and osteoarthritis of the hands. However, after reviewing all of the evidence
presented, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff’s impairments did not meet or equal the level of
severity of any impairment listed in the Listing of Impairments found in Appendix I, Subpart
P, Regulation No. 4. (Tr. 21). The ALJ found Plaintiff retained the residual functional
capacity (RFC) to:
perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) except she is limited to
jobs involving simple tasks and simple instructions.
(Tr. 22). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ determined Plaintiff could perform
work as a blending tank tender and a furniture rental clerk. (Tr. 29).
Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council,
which after reviewing additional evidence submitted by Plaintiff, denied that request on April
19, 2017. (Tr. 1-6). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this action. (Doc. 1). This case is before
the undersigned pursuant to the consent of the parties. (Doc. 5). Both parties have filed
appeal briefs, and the case is now ready for decision. (Docs. 9, 10).
The Court has reviewed the entire transcript.
The complete set of facts and
arguments are presented in the parties’ briefs, and are repeated here only to the extent
necessary.
II.
Applicable Law:
This Court's role is to determine whether the Commissioner's findings are supported
by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Ramirez v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 576, 583
(8th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance but it is enough that a
reasonable mind would find it adequate to support the Commissioner's decision. The ALJ's
decision must be affirmed if the record contains substantial evidence to support it. Edwards
2
v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 964, 966 (8th Cir. 2003). 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. Haley v. Massanari,
258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2001). In other words, 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. 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 her disability by establishing a physical or mental disability that has lasted
at least one year and that prevents her from engaging in any substantial gainful activity.
Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1217 (8th Cir. 2001); see also 42 U.S.C. §
423(d)(1)(A). The Act defines “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). A Plaintiff must show that her disability, not simply her impairment, has
lasted for at least twelve consecutive months.
The Commissioner’s regulations require her to apply a five-step sequential evaluation
process to each claim for disability benefits: (1) whether the claimant has engaged in
substantial gainful activity since filing her claim; (2) whether the claimant has a severe
physical and/or mental impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the
impairment(s) meet or equal an impairment in the listings; (4) whether the impairment(s)
prevent the claimant from doing past relevant work; and (5) whether the claimant is able to
3
perform other work in the national economy given her age, education, and experience. See
20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Only if the final stage is reached does the fact finder consider the
Plaintiff’s age, education, and work experience in light of her residual functional capacity.
See McCoy v. Schweiker, 683 F.2d 1138, 1141-42 (8th Cir. 1982), abrogated on other
grounds by Higgins v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 504, 505 (8th Cir. 2000); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.
III.
Discussion:
Of particular concern to the undersigned is the ALJ’s RFC determination. RFC is the
most a person can do despite that person’s limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). It is
assessed using all relevant evidence in the record. Id.
This includes medical records,
observations of treating physicians and others, and the claimant’s own descriptions of her
limitations. Guilliams v. Barnhart, 393 F.3d 798, 801 (8th Cir. 2005); Eichelberger v.
Barnhart, 390 F.3d 584, 591 (8th Cir. 2004). Limitations resulting from symptoms such as
pain are also factored into the assessment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). The United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has held that a “claimant’s residual functional
capacity is a medical question.”
Lauer v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 700, 704 (8th Cir. 2001).
Therefore, an ALJ’s determination concerning a claimant’s RFC must be supported by
medical evidence that addresses the claimant’s ability to function in the workplace. Lewis v.
Barnhart, 353 F.3d 642, 646 (8th Cir. 2003). “[T]he ALJ is [also] required to set forth
specifically a claimant’s limitations and to determine how those limitations affect h[er]
RFC.” Id.
In the present case, the ALJ determined Plaintiff is able to perform light work with
limitations. According to the regulations, “light work” is generally characterized as requiring
the use of hands and arms for grasping, holding, and turning objects. Social Security Ruling
4
83–10, 1983 WL 31251, at *5. A review of the medical record reveals that in January of
2015, Plaintiff reported to Dr. Andrea Bounds that her hands hurt and would cramp. (670674). At a follow-up appointment with Dr. Bounds in April of 2015, Plaintiff reported
arthritic pain in her hands and stiff fingers, that was “somewhat” relieved with the use of
Aleve and running warm water over her hands. (Tr. 675-768).
The record revealed that both non-examining medical consultants completed RFC
assessments prior to January of 2015, when Plaintiff started complaining about problems
with her hands. The record also revealed that Dr. Bounds completed a RFC assessment in
January of 2016, indicating that Plaintiff had absolutely no ability to use her hands, fingers
and arms to grasp, turn and twist objects. (Tr. 705-708). A complete inability to use her
fingers, hands and arms for the above activities is not supported by the medical records or
Plaintiff’s report that she can do some household chores; help out with coaching a softball
team, albeit in a more limited capacity; drive; and spend time on the internet participating in
online groups. However, the ALJ did not specifically address Plaintiff’s alleged hand
limitations and the Court believes remand is necessary for the ALJ to more fully and fairly
develop the record regarding Plaintiff’s physical RFC.
On remand, the ALJ is directed to address interrogatories to a medical professional
requesting that said physician review Plaintiff's medical records; complete a RFC assessment
regarding Plaintiff's capabilities during the time period in question; and give the objective
basis for the opinion so that an informed decision can be made regarding Plaintiff's ability to
perform basic work activities on a sustained basis. The ALJ may also order a consultative
examination, in which, the consultative examiner should be asked to review the medical
evidence of record, perform examinations and appropriate testing needed to properly
5
diagnosis Plaintiff's condition(s), and complete a medical assessment of Plaintiff's abilities to
perform work related activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.917.
With this evidence, the ALJ should then re-evaluate Plaintiff's RFC and specifically
list in a hypothetical to a vocational expert any limitations that are indicated in the RFC
assessments and supported by the evidence.
The undersigned acknowledges that the ALJ’s decision may be the same after proper
analysis. Nonetheless, proper analysis must occur. Groeper v. Sullivan, 932 F.2d 1234,
1239 (8th Cir. 1991).
IV.
Conclusion:
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by
substantial evidence, and therefore, the denial of benefits to the Plaintiff should be reversed
and this matter should be remanded to the Commissioner for further consideration pursuant
to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
DATED this 12th day of July 2018.
/s/ Erin L. Wiedemann
HON. ERIN L. WIEDEMANN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
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?