Grantham v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on April 10, 2017. (hnc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
SHAYNE GRANTHAM
vs.
PLAINTIFF
Civil No. 6:16-cv-06040
NANCY A. BERRYHILL
Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Shayne Grantham (“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 his application for
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Title 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. 8. Pursuant to this authority, the Court issues
this memorandum opinion and orders the entry of a final judgment in this matter.
1.
Background:
Plaintiff protectively filed his SSI application on March 13, 2013. (Tr. 12, 140-141). In this
application, Plaintiff alleges being disabled due to COPD, generalized weakness, and asthma. (Tr.
159). Plaintiff alleges an onset date of November 1, 2011. (Tr. 12). This application was denied
initially and again upon reconsideration. (Tr. 53-67).
Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on his application. (Tr. 93-95). This request
was granted, and Plaintiff’s administrative hearing was held on July 8, 2014 in Hot Springs,
Arkansas. (Tr. 28-52). At this hearing, Plaintiff was present and was represented by counsel,
1
Shannon Muse Carroll. Id. Plaintiff, Vocational Expert (“VE”) Mach Welch, and a witness for
Plaintiff testified at this hearing. Id. During this hearing, Plaintiff testified he was forty-one (41)
years old, which is defined as a “younger person” under 20 C.F.R. § 416.963(c). (Tr. 32). As for his
education, Plaintiff testified he had graduated from high school. (Tr. 32).
On January 26, 2015, after the administrative hearing, the ALJ entered a fully unfavorable
decision denying Plaintiff’s application. (Tr. 9-23). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had not engaged
in Substantial Gainful Activity (“SGA”) since March 13, 2013, his application date. (Tr. 14, Finding
1). The ALJ determined Plaintiff has the following severe impairments: organic mental disorder,
goiter, COPD, patellofemoral degenerative joint disease, lateral patellar subluxation, and obesity.
(Tr. 14-15, Finding 2). The ALJ also determined Plaintiff’s impairments did not meet or medically
equal the requirements of any of the Listings of Impairments in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of
Regulations No. 4 (“Listings”). (Tr. 15-17, Finding 3).
In this decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and determined his RFC.
(Tr. 17-21, Finding 4). First, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and found his
claimed limitations were not entirely credible. Id. Second, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained
the capacity to perform the following:
After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the
claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work as defined
in 20 CFR 416.967(a) except no exposure to respiratory irritants such as dust, fumes,
and gasses; is limited to work where interpersonal contact is limited (i.e. work
requiring little interaction such as answering simple questions, responding
appropriately to supervisors and coworkers, and interaction with the public is
infrequent and not considered essential to the job); supervision required is simple,
direct and concrete; and judgment within limits with few variables.
Id.
2
Considering his RFC, the ALJ determined Plaintiff did not retain the capacity to perform any
of his PRW. (Tr. 21-22, Finding 5). The ALJ then determined whether Plaintiff retained the
capacity to perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. (Tr. 22-23,
Finding 9). The VE testified at the administrative hearing regarding this issue. (Tr. 22-23). Based
upon that testimony, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform the requirements
of representative occupations such as table worker (sedentary, unskilled) with 454,010 such jobs in
the nation and 5,980 such jobs in Arkansas. (Tr. 23). Because Plaintiff retained the capacity to
perform this other work, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined by
the Act, from March 13, 2013 (application date) through January 26, 2015 (ALJ’s decision date).
(Tr. 23, Finding 10).
Plaintiff sought review with the Appeals Council. (Tr. 4). On April 5, 2016, the Appeals
Council denied his request for review. (Tr. 1-3). On May 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in
this case. ECF No. 1. Both Parties have filed appeal briefs and have consented to the jurisdiction
of this Court. ECF Nos. 8, 12-14. 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)
(2010); 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
3
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
4
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).
3.
Discussion:
In his appeal brief, Plaintiff claims the following: (A) the ALJ improperly determined his
impairments did not meet the requirements of Listings 12.02, 12.03, and 12.04; and (B) the ALJ
improperly determined his knee impairment did not meet the requirements of Listing 1.02(a). ECF
No. 12 at 3-16. The Court will consider each of both of these arguments.
A.
Listings 12.02, 12.03, and 12.04
Plaintiff claims his impairments meet the requirements of Listings 12.02, 12.03, and 12.04.
ECF No. 12 at 3-13. Plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating his impairments meet all the
requirements of a given Listing. See Cox, 160 F.3d at 1206. Upon review of Plaintiff’s argument
in this matter, the Court finds Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating his impairments meet
the requirements of any of these Listings.
Listing 12.02 applies to “neurocognitive disorders,” Listing 12.03 applies to “schizophrenic,
paranoid, and other psychotic disorders,” and Listing 12.04 applies to “depressive, bipolar, and
related disorders.” In the present action, Plaintiff has not specifically demonstrated how he meets
the requirements of any of these three Listings. Instead, Plaintiff broadly claims his impairments
meet the requirements of these Listings.
For instance, Listing 12.02 requires “[m]edical
documentation of a significant cognitive decline from the prior level of functioning in one or more
5
of the cognitive areas: (1) complex attention; (2) executive function; (3) learning and memory; (4)
language; (5) perceptual-motor; or (6) social cognition.” To meet the requirements of this Listing,
Plaintiff must also demonstrate an “extreme” limitation in one or a “marked” limitation in two of
the following: (1) understand, remember, or apply information; (2) interact with others; (3)
concentrate, persist, or maintain pace; and (4) adapt or manage oneself. Here, Plaintiff has not
demonstrated which specific requirements his impairments meet. ECF No. 12 at 3-13.
Without more, the Court simply cannot find Plaintiff has met his burden of demonstrating
his impairments meet the requirements of Listings 12.02, 12.03, and 12.04. Thus, the Court will not
address this issue further. See Vandenboom v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 745, 750 (8th Cir. 2005) (rejecting
out of hand conclusory assertion that the ALJ failed to consider whether claimant met the listings
because the claimant provided no analysis of relevant facts or law regarding the listings).
B.
Listing 1.02(a)
Plaintiff claims his impairment meet the requirements of Listing 1.02 (Major dysfunction of
a joint). ECF No. 12 at 13-16. Again, Plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating his impairments
meet all the requirements of a given Listing. See Cox, 160 F.3d at 1206. Upon review of Plaintiff’s
argument in this matter, the Court finds Plaintiff has not met his burden on this issue.
Indeed, Listing 1.02 requires a “gross anatomical deformity.” In the present action, Plaintiff
has not specifically demonstrated how he suffers from such a deformity. Instead, Plaintiff again
makes broad allegations to support his claims. Without more, the Court simply cannot find Plaintiff
has met his burden of demonstrating his impairments meet the requirements of either Listing 1.02.
Thus, the Court will again not address this issue further. See Vandenboom, 421 F.3d at 750.
6
4.
Conclusion:
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that the decision of the ALJ, denying benefits
to Plaintiff, is supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed. A judgment incorporating
these findings will be entered pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52 and 58.
ENTERED this 10th day of April 2017.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
U.S. 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?