Lynch v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on July 18, 2012. (dmc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
TONYA S. LYNCH
Civil No. 6:11-cv-06069
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE
Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Tonya Lynch (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant to § 205(g) of Title II of the Social
Security Act (“The Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2010), seeking judicial review of a final decision of
the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denying her applications for
Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”), Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) and a period of
disability under Titles II and XVI of the Act. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a
magistrate judge to conduct any and all proceedings in this case, including conducting the trial,
ordering the entry of a final judgment, and conducting all post-judgment proceedings. ECF No. 5.1
Pursuant to this authority, the Court issues this memorandum opinion and orders the entry of a final
judgment in this matter.
Plaintiff protectively filed an application for SSI and DIB on August 4, 2008. (Tr. 7, 85-98).
Plaintiff alleged she was disabled due to heart and mental problems. (Tr. 130). Plaintiff alleged an
onset date of January 1, 2007. (Tr. 7, 130). These applications were denied initially and again upon
reconsideration. (Tr. 34-37). Thereafter, Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on her
The docket numbers for this case are referenced by the designation “ECF No. ____” The transcript pages
for this case are referenced by the designation “Tr.”
applications and this hearing request was granted. (Tr. 54-55).
Plaintiff’s administrative hearing was held on April 2, 2010, in Hot Springs, Arkansas. (Tr.
22-29). Plaintiff failed to appear at the hearing and was declared to be a non-essential witness by
the ALJ. Id. Plaintiff was represented by counsel, Hans Pullen, at this hearing. Id. Vocational
Expert (“VE”) Dwight Turner, testified at this hearing. Id. At the time of this hearing, Plaintiff was
thirty-three (33) years old, which is defined as a “younger person” under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(c),
and had completed the 9th grade. (Tr. 25).
On June 25, 2010, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff’s application
for DIB and SSI. (Tr. 7-15). In this decision, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not engaged in
Substantial Gainful Activity (“SGA”) since January 1, 2007. (Tr. 9, Finding 2). The ALJ
determined Plaintiff had the severe impairments of bipolar and anxiety disorders and polysubstance
abuse. (Tr. 9, Finding 3). The ALJ also determined Plaintiff’s impairments did not meet or
medically equal the requirements of any of the Listing of Impairments in Appendix 1 to Subpart P
of Regulations No. 4 (“Listings”). (Tr. 9, Finding 4).
In this decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and determined her RFC.
(Tr. 10-13, Finding 5). First, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and found her
claimed limitations were not entirely credible. Id. Second, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained
the RFC for all exertional levels of work. Id. The ALJ also found non-exertional limitations of:
interpersonal contact was incidental to the work performed; tasks are learned by rote and require
limited judgment; work is routine and requires little supervision; and detailed supervision is provided
for non-routine tasks. Id.
The ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s Past Relevant Work (“PRW”). (Tr. 13, Finding 6). The ALJ
determined Plaintiff was unable to perform her PRW. Id. The ALJ did, however, find Plaintiff
retained the ability to perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.
(Tr. 13-14, Finding 10). The ALJ based this finding upon the testimony of the VE. Id. Specifically,
the VE testified that a hypothetical individual with Plaintiff’s limitations retained the ability to
perform work as a motel cleaner with 8,000 such jobs in Arkansas and 880,000 in the national
economy and dishwasher with 16,000 such jobs in Arkansas and 1,000,000 in the national economy.
Id. The ALJ then determined Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined by the Act, at
anytime through the date of his decision. (Tr. 14, Finding 11).
Thereafter, Plaintiff requested the Appeals Council review the ALJ’s unfavorable decision.
(Tr. 20-21). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.968. The Appeals Council declined to review this unfavorable
decision. (Tr. 1-3). On September 13, 2011, Plaintiff filed the present appeal. ECF No. 1. The
Parties consented to the jurisdiction of this Court on September 26, 2011. ECF No. 5. Both Parties
have filed appeal briefs. ECF Nos. 8, 9. This case is now ready for decision.
2. Applicable Law:
In reviewing this case, this Court is required to determine whether the Commissioner’s
findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
(2006); Ramirez v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 576, 583 (8th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence is less than
a preponderance of the evidence, but it is enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to
support the Commissioner’s decision. See Johnson v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1145, 1147 (8th Cir. 2001).
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. See
Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2001). 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. See 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 his or her disability by establishing a physical or mental disability that lasted at least one
year and that prevents him or her from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. See Cox v. Apfel,
160 F.3d 1203, 1206 (8th Cir. 1998); 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act defines
a “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
his or her disability, not simply his or her impairment, has lasted for at least twelve consecutive
months. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A).
To determine whether the adult claimant suffers from a disability, the Commissioner uses
the familiar five-step sequential evaluation. He determines: (1) whether the claimant is presently
engaged in a “substantial gainful activity”; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment that
significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities; (3)
whether the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals a presumptively disabling impairment
listed in the regulations (if so, the claimant is disabled without regard to age, education, and work
experience); (4) whether the claimant has the Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) to perform his
or her past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant cannot perform the past work, the burden shifts to
the Commissioner to prove that there are other jobs in the national economy that the claimant can
perform. See Cox, 160 F.3d at 1206; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)-(f). The fact finder only considers
the plaintiff’s age, education, and work experience in light of his or her RFC if the final stage of this
analysis is reached. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (2003).
In her appeal brief, Plaintiff claims the ALJ’s disability determination is not supported by
substantial evidence in the record. ECF No. 8, Pg. 10-15. Specifically, Plaintiff claims the ALJ
erred (1) in his evaluation of the severity of her mental impairment and (2) in determining her RFC.
In response, the Defendant argues the ALJ did not err in any of his findings. ECF No. 9. Because
this Court finds the ALJ improperly evaluated Plaintiff’s RFC, this Court will only address this issue.
In social security cases where a mental impairment is alleged, it is important for an ALJ to
evaluate a claimant’s Global Assessment of Functioning (“GAF”) score in determining whether that
claimant is disabled due to the claimed mental impairment. GAF scores range from 0 to 100. Am.
Psychiatric Ass’n, Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) 34 (4th ed.,
text rev. 2000). The Eighth Circuit has repeatedly held that GAF scores (especially those at or below
40) must be carefully evaluated when determining a claimant’s RFC. See, e.g., Conklin v. Astrue,
360 F. App’x. 704, 707 (8th Cir. 2010) (reversing and remanding an ALJ’s disability determination
in part because the ALJ failed to consider the claimant’s GAF scores of 35 and 40); Pates-Fires v.
Astrue, 564 F.3d 935, 944-45 (8th Cir. 2009) (holding that the ALJ’s RFC finding was not supported
by substantial evidence in the record as a whole, in part due to the ALJ’s failure to discuss or
consider numerous GAF scores below 50).
Indeed, a GAF score at or below 40 should be carefully considered because such a low score
reflects “a major impairment in several areas such as work, family relations, judgment, or mood.”
Conklin, 360 F. App’x at 707 n.2 Am. Psychiatric Ass’n, Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) 34 (4th ed., text rev. 2000)). A GAF score of 40 to 50 also indicates a
claimant suffers from severe symptoms. Specifically, a person with that GAF score suffers from
“[s]erious symptoms (e.g., suicidal ideation, severe obsessional rituals, frequent shoplifting) OR any
serious impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning (e.g., no friends, unable to keep
a job).” Am. Psychiatric Ass’n, Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR)
34 (4th ed., text rev. 2000).
In the present action, between November 4, 2001 and December 22, 2008, Plaintiff was
assessed as having a GAF score with a low 18 and a high of 52. (Tr. 195, 236, 289, 347, 403). On
November 4, 2001, Plaintiff was treated at the Hays Medical Center for an overdose of Tylenol and
Benadryl. (Tr. 192). Plaintiff was diagnosed with major depressive disorder and given a GAF score
of 50. (Tr. 195).
On October 20, 2007, Plaintiff was admitted to St. Vincent Infirmary for three
days for depression and suicide thoughts. (Tr. 235). She was given a GAF score of 18 on admission
and a score of 51 on discharge. (Tr. 236). Finally, from May 2008 through December 2008, Plaintiff
was given three GAF scores of 41, 48, and 52. (Tr. 289, 347, 403).
The ALJ’s opinion only briefly discussed Plaintiff’s GAF score of 51 on discharge from St.
Vincent Infirmary. (Tr. 11). This was the extent of the ALJ’s evaluation regarding Plaintiff’s GAF
scores. The ALJ made absolutely no reference to Plaintiff’s other GAF scores. It was the ALJ’s
responsibility to properly evaluate those GAF scores and make a finding regarding their reliability
as a part of the underlying administrative proceeding. See Conklin, 360 F. App’x at 707. Indeed,
it is especially important that the ALJ address low GAF scores where, as in this case, Plaintiff has
been diagnosed with major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, and depression. (Tr. 193, 209, 235,
248, 349, 403).
Thus, considering these facts, because the ALJ did not properly evaluate Plaintiff’s low GAF
scores, this case must be reversed and remanded for further evaluation of these scores. Upon
remand, the ALJ may still find Plaintiff not disabled, however a proper and complete analysis of
Plaintiff’s GAF scores should be performed.2
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that the decision of the ALJ, denying benefits
to Plaintiff, is not supported by substantial evidence and should be reversed and remanded. A
judgment incorporating these findings will be entered pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
52 and 58.
ENTERED this 18th day of July 2012.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Based on these findings, I do not find it necessary to reach to other points of error raised by the Plaintiff in
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?