Goodwin v. Saul
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT in favor of Social Security Administration Commissioner c/o General Counsel, Andrew Saul against Kathryn Goodwin. CASE CLOSED Signed by Magistrate Judge David A. Sanders on 2/16/21. (def)
Case: 1:20-cv-00038-DAS Doc #: 26 Filed: 02/16/21 1 of 5 PageID #: 1041
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-38-DAS
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
This cause is before the court on the plaintiff’s complaint for judicial review of an
unfavorable final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration regarding
her application for Social Security Disability and/or Supplemental Security Income. The parties
have consented to entry of final judgment by the United States Magistrate Judge under the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), with any appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
The court, having reviewed the record, the administrative transcript, the briefs of the parties, and
the applicable law and having heard oral argument, finds as follows, to-wit:
For the reasons announced by the court on the record at the conclusion of the parties’ oral
argument, the court finds the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is supported by
substantial evidence and there are no reversible errors.
The plaintiff advances four arguments in support of her appeal. She first asserts that the
light RFC assessed by the ALJ is not supported by substantial evidence. The Commissioner
grants that the ALJ erred in misreading the opinion of the DDS physician. The ALJ said the
DDS physician found the plaintiff could perform light work, adopting light work with the
Case: 1:20-cv-00038-DAS Doc #: 26 Filed: 02/16/21 2 of 5 PageID #: 1042
additional restrictions listed in the report as the RFC. To the contrary, the DDS physician opined
that the plaintiff could walk/stand only two hours out of eight and sit six of eight, which is
sedentary work. There is no substantial evidence to support a light RFC, but the evidence
supports a sedentary RFC. Whether this error is harmless comes down to whether the ALJ
properly found that plaintiff could return to past relevant work at the sedentary level, as
considered in the plaintiff’s second argument.
The plaintiff’s second argument is that the ALJ erred in finding the plaintiff could return
to her past relevant work, setting out alternate arguments, but urging the court to find that the
ALJ failed to resolve an inconsistency between VE testimony and the DOT. She argues that
SSR 00-4p, 2000 WL 1898704 (Dec. 4, 200) supersedes Carey v. Apfel, 230 F.3d 131(5th Cir.
2000), and therefore the failure to raise the conflict at the administrative level does not waive any
The plaintiff argues that the job she described is a composite job, not described by the
DOT and therefore pursuant to POMS DI 25005.025 could not be evaluated “as generally
performed.” She also argues that the VE misidentified her past relevant work. Goodwin argues
the most accurate job title for her past work is as a government services investigator, a light level
employment precluded by a sedentary RFC.
Without dispute, the plaintiff could not return to her past relevant work as a real estate
agent because it is light work. The VE classified her other past relevant work as a background
investigator (DOT 241.267-030), which is skilled work generally performed at the sedentary
exertional level. Goodwin described her past job at the light level, reporting she was required to
lift twenty pounds. The pertinent question, therefore, is whether the ALJ could properly find she
could return to this past work, given what should have been a sedentary RFC.
Case: 1:20-cv-00038-DAS Doc #: 26 Filed: 02/16/21 3 of 5 PageID #: 1043
The plaintiff described her job duties as follows:
I conducted interviews for federal companies’ employees, mostly different
branches of the military. I would contact former employers, neighbors, and others
by telephone or in person to verify employment records, to obtain history of moral
and social behavior, and education checks. Traveled to courthouse and police
stations to examine public records to verify residence and criminal history. I
obtained credit rating from banks and credit services. After gathering and
analyzing information I would work from home and type reports of findings from
investigations using a computer provided to me by my employer.
The VE found her past relevant work was as a clerical investigator, a sedentary job,
described in the DOT (241.0267-030) as set out below:
Investigates persons or business establishments applying for credit, employment,
insurance, loans, or settlement of claims: Contacts former employers, neighbors,
trade associations, and others by telephone or in person to verify employment
record and to obtain health history and history of moral and social behavior.
Examines city directories and public records to verify residence history,
convictions and arrests, property ownership, bankruptcies, liens, an unpaid tax of
applicant. Obtains credit rating from banks and credit services. Analyzes
information gathered by investigation and prepares reports of findings and
recommendations, using typewriter or computer. May interview applicant on
telephone or in person to obtain other financial and personal data to complete the
record. May be designated according to the type of investigation as Credit
Reporter (business ser.); insurance application investigator (insurance)
The plaintiff contends that the appropriate job title most consistent with her past work
is a government services investigator job (DOT 168.267.062), a job generally performed at the
light level, and therefore outside of her RFC. That job description is as follows:
Investigates regulated activities to assure compliance with federal, state, or
municipal laws: Locates and interviews plaintiffs, witnesses, or representatives of
business or government to gather facts relating to alleged violation. Observes
conditions to verify facts indicating violation of law relating to activities as
revenue collection, employment practices, or fraudulent benefit claims. Examines
business, personal, or public records and documents to establish facts and
authenticity of data. Investigates character of applicant for special license or
permit. Investigates suspected misuses of license or permit. Prepares
correspondence and reports of investigation for use by administrative or legal
authorities. Testifies in court or add administrative proceedings concerning
findings of investigation. May serve legal papers. May be required to meet
Case: 1:20-cv-00038-DAS Doc #: 26 Filed: 02/16/21 4 of 5 PageID #: 1044
licensing or certification standards established by Regulatory agency concerned.
May be designated according to function or agency \where employed as Inspector,
Weights and Measures…; Investigator, Internal Revenue…; Investigator Welfare
…; Postal Inspector…; Investigator, Claims, ….
The court agrees with the Commissioner’s argument that the VE’s selection of the job
description for the past relevant work does not represent a conflict between the DOT and the
VE’s testimony, but the plaintiff’s disagreement with expert testimony. The plaintiff’s argument
is simply that the VE’s selection of job titles within the DOT was inaccurate. The court,
therefore, need not address whether the failure to raise a conflict at the administrative level
operates as a waiver under Carey, supra. The court finds that the job title selected by the VE, as
opposed to either the government services investigator, or finding her job was a composite of
other jobs, does not appear to be erroneous. The selected job description closely matches the job
description given by Goodwin. That her description of her past work varies in the specifics of
requirements of some travel and the amount of weight lifted does not mean the job title selected
is erroneous, but that the job as actually performed by Goodwin in the past, was at a higher level
of exertion, than is required for the job as generally performed. The near perfect matches
between the plaintiff’s description and the description in the selected job title also rebuts the
plaintiff’s argument that the job was a composite job.
The plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in his analysis of the opinion of Dr. Edwards. Dr.
Edward’s opinion, if adopted would lead to a finding that the claimant was disabled, per the
testimony of the VE. The ALJ, however, found the opinion was not persuasive because Dr.
Edward’s opinion was issued a year after he last treated the physician; there was no note of a
contemporaneous physical examination leaving his opinions unsupported by his record; and that
his opinion was not supported by the preponderance of the medical records. While the last
suggestion, without further analysis, is meaningless boilerplate that sheds no light on the ALJ’s
Case: 1:20-cv-00038-DAS Doc #: 26 Filed: 02/16/21 5 of 5 PageID #: 1045
persuasiveness decision, the gap in time in treatment and the absence of a contemporaneous
physical examination to support his findings, are sufficient under the new regulations. While the
court might not find this reasoning compelling, if considered de novo, given the standard of
review, the court accepts this persuasiveness analysis.
Goodwin also challenges the ALJ assessment of the plaintiff’s pain. The ALJ repeatedly
referred to and acknowledged that the plaintiff’s impairments caused her pain, though with
medications, she reported pain levels of 2s and 3s out of ten. Because the pain was not
“constant, unremitting, and wholly unresponsive to therapeutic treatment,” and because the ALJ
clearly considered the pain, the court does not find error,
Because the only error was harmless, the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
SO ORDERED this the 16th day of February, 2021.
/s/ David A. Sanders
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?