Shepherd v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Erin L. Setser on March 2, 2015. (rg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

EMILY L. SHEPHERD

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL NO. 14-5092

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
Social Security Administration

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Emily L. Shepherd, 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 June 27, 2011, alleging an

inability to work since February 3, 2011, due to spondylosis of the spine at L5, osteoarthritis,
and depression. (Tr. 92, 129). An administrative hearing was held on August 27, 2012, at which
Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified. (Tr. 24-54).
By written decision dated November 9, 2012, the ALJ found that during the relevant time
period, Plaintiff had an impairment or combination of impairments that were severe. (Tr. 13).
Specifically, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: degenerative disc

AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)

disease, osteoarthritis, and depression. 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.13). 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 able to
perform work where interpersonal contact is routine but superficial and
complexity of tasks is learned by experience with several variables and judgment
within limits. The supervision required is little for routine tasks but detailed for
non-routine tasks.
(Tr. 15). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ determined Plaintiff could perform her
past relevant work as a domestic house cleaner, a retail cashier, and a convenience store clerk.
(Tr. 18).
Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council, which
denied that request on January 16, 2014. (Tr. 1-4). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this action.
(Doc. 1). This case is before the undersigned pursuant to the consent of the parties. (Doc. 7).
Both parties have filed appeal briefs, and the case is now ready for decision. (Doc. 11; Doc. 13).
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 v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d

-2-

AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)

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),
1382c(a)(3)(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),
1382(3)(c). 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 perform other work in the national

-3-

AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)

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); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.
III.

Discussion:
Plaintiff argues the following issue on appeal: 1) the ALJ erred in the evaluation of the

medical and opinion evidence of record; 2) the ALJ erred in determining Plaintiff’s RFC; and
3) the ALJ erred in determining Plaintiff could perform her past relevant work.
A.

Subjective Complaints and Credibility Analysis:

The ALJ was required to consider all the evidence relating to Plaintiff’s subjective
complaints including evidence presented by third parties that relates to: (1) Plaintiff's daily
activities; (2) the duration, frequency, and intensity of her pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating
factors; (4) dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of her medication; and (5) functional
restrictions. See Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984). While an ALJ may
not discount a claimant's subjective complaints solely because the medical evidence fails to
support them, an ALJ may discount those complaints where inconsistencies appear in the record
as a whole. Id. As the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit observed, “Our
touchstone is that [a claimant's] credibility is primarily a matter for the ALJ to decide.” Edwards
v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 964, 966 (8th Cir. 2003).
After reviewing the administrative record, it is clear that the ALJ properly considered and
evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, including the Polaski factors. In March of 2011,
consultative examiner, Dr. Terry L. Efird, noted that Plaintiff reported she was able to drive

-4-

AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)

unfamiliar routes; to shop independently; to handle personal finances; to perform activities of
daily living with limitations due to pain; to get together with friends a couple of times a month;
to talk to her mother daily, and visit her mother several times a month; and to spend time
attending her children’s extracurricular activities. (Tr. 260-263). In a Function Report dated
October 27, 2011, Plaintiff reported she was able to make sure her children were up and ready
for school; to take care of her personal needs, noting that she needed to sit to put on pants; to
prepare three simple meals a day for her family; to do light housekeeping with breaks; to drive;
to shop for groceries twice a week; and to talk on the telephone a few times a week. (Tr. 160168). The record further revealed Plaintiff sought treatment for right wrist pain in September
of 2011, after a horse she was walking was startled and jerked the rope she was holding. (Tr.
286-290).
Therefore, although it is clear that Plaintiff suffers with some degree of pain, she has not
established that she is unable to engage in any gainful activity. See Craig v. Apfel, 212 F.3d
433, 436 (8th Cir. 2000) (holding that mere fact that working may cause pain or discomfort does
not mandate a finding of disability). Accordingly, the Court concludes that substantial evidence
supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s subjective complaints were not totally credible.
B.

The ALJ’s RFC Determination and Medical Opinions:

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

-5-

AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)

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.
In determining that Plaintiff maintained the RFC to perform light work with limitations,
the ALJ considered the medical assessments of the non-examining agency medical consultants;
Plaintiff’s subjective complaints; and her medical records. The Court notes that in determining
Plaintiff’s RFC, the ALJ discussed the medical opinions of examining and non-examining
medical professionals, including the opinions of Drs. Sheri L. Simon, Dan Gardner, Patricia
McCarron, Winston Brown, and Terry L. Efird, and set forth the reasons for the weight given
to the opinions. Renstrom v. Astrue, 680 F.3d 1057, 1065 (8th Cir. 2012) (“It is the ALJ’s
function to resolve conflicts among the opinions of various treating and examining
physicians”)(citations omitted); Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010 at 1012 (the ALJ may reject the
conclusions of any medical expert, whether hired by the claimant or the government, if they are
inconsistent with the record as a whole). Based on the record as a whole, the Court finds
substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s RFC determination for the relevant time period
C.

Past Relevant Work:

Plaintiff has the initial burden of proving that she suffers from a medically determinable
impairment which precludes the performance of past work. Kirby v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1323,

-6-

AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)

1326 (8th Cir. 1991). Only after the claimant establishes that a disability precludes performance
of past relevant work will the burden shift to the Commissioner to prove that the claimant can
perform other work. Pickner v. Sullivan, 985 F.2d 401, 403 (8th Cir. 1993).
According to the Commissioner's interpretation of past relevant work, a claimant will not
be found to be disabled if she retains the RFC to perform:
1. The actual functional demands and job duties of a particular past
relevant job; or
2. The functional demands and job duties of the occupation as
generally required by employers throughout the national economy.

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e); S.S.R. 82-61 (1982); Martin v. Sullivan, 901 F.2d 650, 653 (8th Cir.
1990)(expressly approving the two part test from S.S.R. 82-61).
The Court notes in this case the ALJ relied upon the testimony of a vocational expert,
who after listening to the ALJ’s proposed hypothetical question which included the limitations
addressed in the RFC determination discussed above, testified that the hypothetical individual
would be able to perform Plaintiff’s past relevant work. See Gilbert v. Apfel, 175 F.3d 602, 604
(8th Cir. 1999) ("The testimony of a vocational expert is relevant at steps four and five of the
Commissioner's sequential analysis, when the question becomes whether a claimant with a
severe impairment has the residual functional capacity to do past relevant work or other work")
(citations omitted). Accordingly, the Court finds substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s
finding that Plaintiff could perform her past relevant work as a domestic house cleaner, a retail
cashier, and a convenience store clerk

-7-

AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)

IV.

Conclusion:
Accordingly, having carefully reviewed the record, the undersigned finds substantial

evidence supporting the ALJ's decision denying the Plaintiff benefits, and thus the decision
should be affirmed. The undersigned further finds that the Plaintiff’s Complaint should be
dismissed with prejudice.
DATED this 2nd day of March, 2015.
/s/ Erin L. Setser
HON. ERIN L. SETSER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-8-

AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)