Monroe v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Erin L. Setser on June 9, 2016. (rg)

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

MARSHA P. MONROE

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL NO. 15-5089

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
Social Security Administration

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Marsha P. Monroe, 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) and supplemental security income (SSI) benefits under the provisions of Titles II and
XVI 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 applications for DIB and SSI on September 15,

2012, and September 27, 2012, respectively, alleging an inability to work since August 30,
2012, due to Type 1 diabetes, diabetic neuropathy, and carpal tunnel syndrome. (Tr. 136, 144,
227). An administrative video hearing was held on September 6, 2013, at which Plaintiff
appeared with counsel and testified. (Tr. 41-71).

1

By written decision dated December 12, 2013, the ALJ found that during the relevant
time period, Plaintiff had an impairment or combination of impairments that were severe. (Tr.
18). Specifically, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: diabetes and
peripheral neuropathy. 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. 18). The ALJ found Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to:
perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a)
except she can occasionally climb, balance, crawl, kneel, stoop, crouch, and
frequently finger and handle.
(Tr. 18). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ determined Plaintiff could perform
work as a small production machine operator, a small product assembler, and a small products
inspector. (Tr. 23).
Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council, which
denied that request on February 20, 2015. (Tr. 3). In a letter dated June 1, 2015, the Appeals
Council noted that medical records had been uploaded to Plaintiff’s claim folder, that the
evidence had been reviewed, and that no change from the previous decision was warranted.
(Tr. 1). 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. (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.

2

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 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.

3

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 economy given her age, education, and experience. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520,
416.920. 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, 416.920.
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,

4

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 maintained the RFC to perform
sedentary work with limitations. While the ALJ mentions Plaintiff’s alleged vision problem,
the RFC determined does not include any visual limitations. A review of the medical records
reveal that in April of 2013, Plaintiff sought treatment due to a loss of vision with a black spot
in her left eye. In June of 2013, Plaintiff reported a blurry spot in her right eye, and also
complained of having difficulty seeing correctly with glasses. Plaintiff continued to report a
blind spot in her eye in August of 2013, and started to receive intravitreal injections in late
2013. As the RFC statement relied upon by the ALJ was completed in prior to Plaintiff’s more
recent vision problems, the Court does not find substantial evidence to support the RFC
determination. The Court finds remand necessary so that the ALJ can more fully and fairly
develop the record regarding Plaintiff’s visual impairments.
On remand, the ALJ is directed to address interrogatories to a medical professional
requesting that said physician review all of 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.
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
assessment and supported by the evidence. While the Court did not address the ALJ’s Step 5

5

finding, it did not go unnoticed by the Court that Plaintiff was found to be able to perform jobs
that require frequent near acuity.
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 9th day of June, 2016.

/s/ Erin L. Setser
HON. ERIN L. SETSER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6