Hanson v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

Filing 16

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING 13 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on July 25, 2016. (src)

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

JOHN L. HANSON

PLAINTIFF

v.

CASE NO. 5:15-cv-5150

CAROLYN W. COLVIN ,
Acting Commissioner, SSA

DEFENDANT

OPINION & ORDER
Currently before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") (Doc.
13) of the Honorable Erin L. Setser, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western
District of Arkansas , regarding Plaintiff John L. Hanson's request for judicial review of
Defendant's decision to

deny his claim

for disability insurance

benefits and

supplemental security income under the provisions of Titles II and XVI of the Social
Security Act. The R & R advises the Court to affirm the ALJ 's denial of Hanson's claim ,
and to dismiss the case with prejudice. After conducting a de nova review, the Court
agrees. The R & R is ADOPTED in full , and the case is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE .

I.

DISCUSSION

The facts and legal standards pertinent to this case are detailed at length in the
R & R, and will only be summarized for context herein. Plaintiff John T. Hanson suffers
from a myriad of back issues , hypertension , and obesity. On December 4, 2013 , ALJ
Jonathan P. Blucher held a hearing on Hanson's claim , and on March 17, 2014, he
entered a decision denying the claim . Hanson timely appealed to this Court on July 2,
2015 , arguing that the ALJ erred by: (i) finding that Hanson's impairments do not
1

medically equal the severity of Listing 1.04; (ii) incorrectly assessing Hanson's residual
functional capacity ("RFC"); and (iii) concluding that Hanson can perform his past
relevant work. See Doc. 9. Magistrate Judge Setser issued her R & Ron April 6, 2016 ,
which disagrees with each of Hanson's contentions. On April 25 , 2016, Hanson filed
Objections to the R & R (Doc. 14 ), identifying the same three issues he raised in
response to the ALJ 's decision.
In reviewing the decision of the ALJ , the Court must determine whether
substantial evidence in the administrative record supports the decision , pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 405(g). "Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind
would accept as adequate to support the Commissioner's conclusion." Young v. Apfel,
221 F.3d 1065, 1068 (8th Cir. 2000). Such evidence is "less than a preponderance but
enough so that a reasonable mind could find it adequate to support the decision ."

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 could have
supported a contrary outcome, or because the Court could have decided the case
differently. See Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742 , 747 (8th Cir. 2001 ). In other words,
"[i]f after reviewing the record , the court finds it is possible to draw two inconsistent
positions from the evidence and one of those positions represents the ALJ 's findings ,
the court must affirm the ALJ's decision." Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 789 (8th Cir.
2005) (citing Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211 , 1217 (8th Cir. 2001)).
The Court begins with Hanson's objection regarding Listing 1.04. At step three of
the familiar five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether an

2

individual is disabled , see 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(a), the ALJ must determine whether the
claimant has "an impairment(s) that meets or equals one of [the SSA's] listings in
appendix 1 . ... " Id. at (a)(4)(iii). The listings identify impairments considered "severe
enough to prevent an individual from doing any gainful activity . . . ." 20 C.F .R.

§ 404.1525(a). Listing 1.04 pertains specifically to disorders of the spine. See 20 C.F.R.

§ 404, Subpart P, App'x I, Reg . No. 4.
Substantial evidence in the administrative record supports the ALJ 's finding that
Hanson's impairments do not meet or equal Listing 1.04. Certainly, Hanson is correct
that some evidence in the record supports a positive finding-as the ALJ noted-but
substantial evidence points the other way as well. The ALJ noted , for example , that
during some of his examinations, Hanson demonstrated normal gait, motor strength ,
joint stability, and muscle tone. (Doc. 15, p. 15). And , in Hanson's "most recent
orthopedist visit," his examination was essentially normal by all relevant metrics. Id. At
best, "it is possible to draw two inconsistent positions from the evidence," one of which
supports the ALJ 's position. Goff, 421 F.3d at 790 . Reversing the ALJ would therefore
be error on this Court's part.
Second , substantial evidence supports the ALJ 's RFC determination, including
his credibility analysis. As an initial matter, Hanson objects to the ALJ 's finding that his
"statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of [his] symptoms
are not entirely credible . . .. " (Doc. 14, p. 3); (Doc. 15, p. 18). The ALJ reached this
conclusion based mainly on Hanson's inconsistent use of a cane and often normal
medical examinations . (Doc. 15, p. 18). Keeping the principle that "credibility is primarily

3

a matter for the ALJ to decide" in mind , the Court does not take issue with the ALJ 's
credibility analysis. Edwards , 314 F.3d at 966.
The Court also cannot reverse the ALJ 's RFC determination. "Your residual
functional capacity is the most you can still do despite your limitations. " 20 C.F.R.

§ 404.1545 (a)(1 ). An ALJ must assess a claimant' s RFC "based on all the relevant
evidence in [his] case record ." Id. ALJ Blucher found that Hanson had the RFC to "lift 20
pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; and stand/walk 4 hours and sit 6 hours
in an 8-hour workday," with certain other limitations. (Doc. 15, p. 16). Hanson argues
that in reaching this decision, the ALJ "failed to develop the record[,] failed to give
meaningful consider [sic] all of Mr. Hanson's combined impairments . . . [and] cherrypicked findings from the record ." (Doc. 14, p. 3).
The Court disagrees. The RFC determination in the ALJ's written decision spans
four pages, details the medical evidence in the case, and factors Hanson's back
ailments , obesity, and hypertension. (Doc. 15, pp. 16-19). It includes substantial
evidence to support ALJ Blucher's conclusion. For example, Hanson "exhibited negative
straight leg and he maintained 5/5 strength , with intact sensation" in August, 2013. Id. at
19. During that same time , he had no "radiographic hardware complications. " Id. More
recently, he again exhibited "negative straight leg raise ," "full range of motion throughout
the lumbar spine," and "5/5 motor strength ." And , notably, "[Hanson] worked as a
chaplain/grief counselor for several months in 2013" and "described this work as
involving walking and attending functions for grieving patients." Id. at 19-20. While there
is other evidence that may point to the opposite conclusion , the Court, again , cannot

4

second guess the ALJ's substantially supported conclusion just because a contrary
conclusion is possible. See Haley, 258 F.3d at 747.
Third , the ALJ did not err in finding that Hanson 's RFC allows him to perform his
past relevant work. Hanson has past relevant work as a minister, social worker, and
court administrator. At the December 4, 2013 hearing , the vocational expert classified
these vocations as light work, light work, and sedentary work, respectively. See Doc.
15, p. 57. Given the medical evidence in the record , the ALJ 's credibility determination,
and Hanson's work as a chaplain during his disability period , the ALJ 's conclusion that
Hanson's RFC allowed him to perform these occupations is supported by substantial
evidence. Hanson's various objections to this finding are without merit.
II.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein , the R & R (Doc. 13) is ADOPTED and the case is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE . Judg*
IT IS SO ORDERED on

t will enter by

this ~ day of July, 201

5