Neel v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Erin L. Wiedemann on November 20, 2018. (lgd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HARRISON DIVISION
JANIE M. NEEL
PLAINTIFF
v.
CIVIL NO. 17-03062
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Commissioner
Social Security Administration
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Janie M. Neel, 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 claim 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 application for DIB on September 14, 2014, alleging an
inability to work since June 10, 2014, due to depression, anxiety, PTSD, back injury, bone
fragments in hips, sleep apnea, and hypothyroidism. (Tr. 242-248, 288, 289). Plaintiff meets
last insured status through December 31, 2019. (Tr. 39). An administrative hearing was held
on April 21, 2016, at which plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified. (Tr. 62-103).
By written decision dated June 3, 2016, the ALJ found that during the relevant time
period, Plaintiff had an impairment or combination of impairments that were severe – status
post right ankle arthroscopic surgery; cervical, thoracic, and lumbar degenerative disc disease;
history of thoracic spine compression fracture; degenerative joint disease; sacroiliitis; obesity;
1
obstructive sleep apnea; chronic pain syndrome; diabetes mellitus; hypertension;
hypothyroidism; hip osteoarthritis; gastroesophageal reflux disease; cannabis abuse;
depressive disorder; posttraumatic stress disorder; generalized anxiety disorder; and borderline
personality disorder. (Tr. 39). However, after reviewing all of the evidence presented, the ALJ
determined that Plaintiff’s impairments did not meet or equal the severity of any impairment
listed in the Listing of Impairments found in Appendix I, Subpart P, Regulation No. 4. (Tr.
16). The ALJ found Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to:
[P]erform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.157(a) and 416.967(a),
except the claimant can occasionally bend, stoop, kneel, and crouch; never
crawl or climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; occasional exposure to dust,
fumes, smoke, or chemicals; and she can understand, remember, and carry
out more than simple instructions and tasks, but no complex instructions or
tasks.
(Tr. 44). With the help of the vocational expert (VE), the ALJ determined that during the
relevant time period, Plaintiff was unable to perform any of her past relevant work, but would
be capable of performing work as an informational clerk, general clerk, or order clerk. (Tr. 4849).
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. 12, 13).
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. Ramirex 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 v.
2
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 had engaged in
substantial gainful activity since filing her claim; (2) whether the claimant had a severe
physical and/or mental impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the
impairment(s) met or equaled an impairment in the listings; (4) whether the impairment(s)
prevented the claimant from doing past relevant work; and (5) whether the claimant was able
3
to 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 RFC. See McCoy v. Schneider,
683 F.2d 1138, 1141-42 (8th Cir. 1982); 20C.F.R. SS404.1520, abrogated on other grounds by
Higgens v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 504, 505 (8th Cir. 2000); 20 C.F.R §404.1520.
III.
Discussion:
Plaintiff raises only one issue in this matter: whether the ALJ erred in her RFC
determination.
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by concluding that despite Plaintiff’s
physical pain, she could sustain concentration, persistence, and pace sufficient to maintain
employment. (Doc. 12, pp. 2-7).
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 his RFC.” Id. “The ALJ
is permitted to base its RFC determination on ‘a non-examining physician’s opinion and other
4
medical evidence in the record.’” Barrows v. Colvin, Civil No. 13-4087-MWB, 2015 WL
1510159 at *15 (quoting from Willms v. Colvin, Civil No. 12-2871, 2013 WL 6230346 (D.
Minn. Dec. 2, 2013).
In the present matter, the ALJ gave little weight to the RFC assessments provided by
the state agency medical consultants. (Tr. 47). The RFC assessments provided at the initial
and reconsideration levels both provided a higher level of RFC than the ALJ’s final
determination. (Tr. 44, 110-113, 138-140, 156-158). The ALJ assigned these assessments
little weight because evidence received at the hearing level indicated that Plaintiff’s additional
medically determinable impairments required greater limitations. (Tr. 47). Specifically,
Plaintiff testified that she required the use of an ankle brace to prevent swelling; that weight
gain contributed to her pain; that she had fatigue and mental impairments; and that she had an
improvement of only 50% in her pain after steroid injection treatments. (Tr. 47).
The ALJ gave little weight to the opinions of claimant’s counselor, Jan Camp, LPC,
LADAD, NCC, and her nurse, Jennifer Lamb, RN, BSN, as their opinions were inconsistent
with the objective medical evidence and Plaintiff’s reported daily activities. (Tr. 47). Jan
Camp opined that there was no possible way Plaintiff could hold a job due to her stress and
health problems. (Tr. 47, 604). The ALJ noted that opinion on the question of disability is
reserved to the Commissioner, and that Ms. Camp’s assertion was inconsistent with her
acknowledgement that Plaintiff drove for long periods each day and cared for her children.
(Tr. 47, 604). Nurse Lamb opined Plaintiff had intractable pain and her pain issues were
debilitating. (Tr. 47, 368). The ALJ held that this was inconsistent with Plaintiff’s treatment
record, as she had managed her pain through a variety of means including: medication, physical
therapy, steroid injections, and visiting the chiropractor. (Tr. 47). The ALJ also noted that
5
Nurse Lamb was familiar with Plaintiff’s condition at her previous place of employment,
which required a significant amount of standing. (Tr. 48).
The ALJ carefully examined the medical evidence of record in making the
determination to provide greater limitations than those opined by the state agency medical
consultants. (Tr. 45-). The ALJ considered Plaintiff’s treatment records that showed a history
of bilateral hip pain, and her positive response to treatment, in making the determination that
she should never crawl or climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds. (TR. 46). She considered
Plaintiff’s sleep apnea and gastroesophageal reflux disease, as well as her history of benefit
with use of CPAP machine and history of internal hemorrhoids in determining that Plaintiff
could have only occasional exposure to dust, fumes, smoke or chemicals. (Tr.46). The ALJ
considered Plaintiff’s BMI of over 33 throughout the record and her diagnosis of obesity, as
well as her testimony at the hearing that she had gained weight in determining that a restriction
to sedentary work was appropriate. (Tr. 46). The ALJ considered Plaintiff’s history of seeking
mental health treatment, as well as her counselor’s notes of numerous diagnoses and stress due
to her living situation and those of her children in determining that Plaintiff could carry out
more than simple instructions and tasks, but no complex instructions or tasks. (Tr. 46-47).
Furthermore, the record shows that Plaintiff had a history of back pain and ankle pain.
Plaintiff had a history of extensive back problems including sacroiliitis, lumbar intervertebral
disc disorder, and lumbosacral spondylosis. (Tr. 427, 582, 584, 638). Her pain necessitated
the long-term use of opiates as well as steroid injections. (Tr. 431, 439, 444, 448, 501, 592,
620, 638, 652). Plaintiff also had a history of ankle pain with surgery upon her left ankle to
remove a loose body. (Tr. 457).
6
The Court finds that despite the ALJ’s assignment of little weight to all medical opinion
evidence provided, her RFC determination was based upon substantial evidence.
IV.
Conclusion
Accordingly, having carefully reviewed the record, the Court finds substantial evidence
supporting the ALJ’s decision denying the Plaintiff benefits, and thus the decision is hereby
affirmed. The Plaintiff’s Complaint should be, and is hereby, dismissed with prejudice
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of November, 2018.
/s/ Erin L. Wiedemann
HON. ERIN L. WIEDEMANN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
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?