Sistrunk v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 11 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Cindy Sistrunk, 15 Report and Recommendations, Signed by District Judge Kristi H. Johnson on 8/2/2022 (cwl)

Case 3:21-cv-00413-KHJ-RPM Document 17 Filed 08/02/22 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
CINDY L. SISTRUNK
V.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:21-CV-413-KHJ-RPM

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security

DEFENDANT

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of United
States Magistrate Judge Robert P. Myers, Jr. [15]. For the following reasons, the
Court adopts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
I.

Facts and Procedural History

Cindy L. Sistrunk applied for disability insurance and supplemental security
income in September 2017, alleging a disability beginning in June 2012. Admin.
Record [9] at 210–11. She alleged that she suffered from an overactive bladder,
degenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, and depression. Id. at 211,
253. After being denied benefits, Sistrunk requested and obtained a hearing before
an administrative law judge (“ALJ”). Id. at 280, 186–209. ALJ Jim Frasier held a
hearing and ultimately found that Sistrunk was not disabled under the Social
Security Act. Id. at 232–243. The Appeals Council granted Sistrunk’s request for
review and remanded the matter for further consideration of Sistrunk’s alleged
somatization disorder. Id. at 249–51.

Case 3:21-cv-00413-KHJ-RPM Document 17 Filed 08/02/22 Page 2 of 8

On remand, ALJ Laurie Porciello conducted two hearings before ultimately
finding that Sistrunk is not disabled under the Social Security Act. Id. at 30–31.
The Appeals Council denied review, so the ALJ’s decision became the final decision
of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”). Id. at
6–9. Sistrunk sought review of the decision by suing in this Court under 42 U.S.C. §
405(g). Compl. [1] at 1.
Sistrunk argues that the ALJ erred in three ways: (1) the ALJ did not
properly consider all of Sistrunk’s functional limitations—specifically, her mental
impairments—in determining her residual functional capacity (“RFC”), (2) the ALJ
did not properly consider Sistrunk’s arthritis-based manipulative limitations in
determining her RFC, and (3) the ALJ did not consider all medical opinions and
explain the weight given to the opinions in determining Sistrunk’s RFC. Mem. in
Support of Mot. for Summ. J. [12] at 1–3. After review, the Magistrate Judge
recommended the Court find that the Commissioner’s decision is supported by
substantial evidence and affirm the decision. [15] at 11.
Written objections to the Report were due by July 28, 2022. [15] at 11.
Sistrunk timely objected to the Report, reiterating the arguments she made against
the ALJ’s initial determination. Obj. [16] at 2–6.
II.

Standard

The Court reviews de novo the portions of the Magistrate’s Report to which
Sistrunk objects, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), while the remaining portions may be subject
to the clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion, and contrary to law standards of

2

Case 3:21-cv-00413-KHJ-RPM Document 17 Filed 08/02/22 Page 3 of 8

review. See United States v. Brigham, 569 F.3d 220, 228 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation
omitted). The Court is not “required to reiterate the findings and conclusions of the
magistrate judge.” Koetting v. Thompson, 995 F.2d 37, 40 (5th Cir. 1993) (citing

Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 406-07 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982)).
III.

Analysis

When reviewing the Commissioner’s decision, the Court must uphold the
finding if there are no errors of law and substantial evidence supports factual
determinations. See Underwood v. Bowen, 828 F.2d 1081, 1082 (5th Cir. 1987)
(citations omitted); 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). “Substantial evidence is more than a
scintilla, less than a preponderance, and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Adams v. Bowen, 833 F.2d
509, 511 (5th Cir. 1987) (citing Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)).
When substantial evidence supports a fact, the Court should not reweigh evidence
or substitute its judgment for the Commissioner’s. Fields v. Bowen, 805 F.2d 1168,
1169 (5th Cir. 1986).
Sistrunk objects to the Report’s findings on all three issues for review,
ultimately arguing that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s decision.
She reasserts that the ALJ ignored the combined effect of Sistrunk’s limitations,
including non-severe mental limitations. [16] at 1. She also objects to the finding
that substantial evidence exists for the ALJ’s failure to find that Sistrunk had
manipulative limitations based on her arthritis. Id. at 5. Finally, Sistrunk objects to

3

Case 3:21-cv-00413-KHJ-RPM Document 17 Filed 08/02/22 Page 4 of 8

the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the ALJ permissibly weighed medical opinions.

Id. The Court will review each of the Magistrate Judge’s findings de novo.
A. Consideration of Combined Effect of Severe and Non-Severe
Limitations in Determining RFC
When deciding whether an individual has a disability, the Social Security
Administration (“SSA”) uses a five-step evaluation process. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520. An ALJ may find that a claimant is disabled under the Social Security
Act if (1) she is not employed in a substantial gainful activity; (2) she has a severe,
medically determinable impairment; (3) her impairment meets or equals one of the
listings in appendix 1 to subpart P of § 404; (4) the consideration and assessment of
her RFC allows the ALJ to conclude she cannot perform any past relevant work;
and (5) her RFC, age, education, and work experience prevent her to adjust to
performing any other work. Id.
An impairment is not severe “only if it is a slight abnormality [having] such
minimal effect on the individual that it would not be expected to interfere with the
individual’s ability to work.” Stone v. Heckler, 752 F.2d 1099, 1101 (5th Cir. 1985)
(alteration in original) (citation omitted). ALJs must consider the combined effect of
both severe and non-severe limitations in their RFC analysis. Bowen v. Yuckert,
482 U.S. 137, 150–51 (1987). But courts in the Fifth Circuit “have found no legal
error where an ALJ does not include mental limitations in a claimant’s RFC so long
as the ALJ considered the limiting effects and restrictions of all impairments [both
severe and non-severe] in the RFC analysis.” Martha L. v. Saul, No. 1:20-cv-3-HBU, 2021 WL 3610316, at *5 (N.D. Tex. July 27, 2021). In other words, although the
4

Case 3:21-cv-00413-KHJ-RPM Document 17 Filed 08/02/22 Page 5 of 8

ALJ must consider non-severe impairments when conducting an RFC assessment,
the ALJ does not have to include those limitations in the RFC if there is insufficient
evidence that they produce limiting effects. Thomas v. Comm’r of Social Security,
No. 16-830-RLB, 2018 WL 1095569, at *13 (M.D. La. Feb. 28, 2018).
The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that substantial evidence supports
the ALJ’s decision to exclude mental limitations from the RFC. [15] at 5. In
determining the severity of Sistrunk’s mental impairments at step two, the ALJ
considered the four areas of mental functioning set out in the disability regulations:
(1) understanding, remembering, or applying information; (2) interacting with
others; (3) concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace; and (4) adapting or
managing oneself. [9] at 19–20. The ALJ engaged in a thorough analysis,
considering evidence from multiple medical professionals, to arrive at her
conclusion that Sistrunk’s mental limitations were not severe. [15] at 5. The ALJ
also concluded that there was “no evidence of record to indicate work-related
restrictions due to [mental] impairment.” [9] at 19. And Sistrunk “had not received
specialized mental health care,” and “did not report that any mental health
condition prevented her from working.” Id.
The ALJ ultimately determined that Sistrunk suffered no more than a “mild
limitation” in each of the four areas, and therefore concluded that her mental
impairments were not severe, “singly or in combination, as they presented through
the date last insured.” [9] at 20. The ALJ’s consideration of Sistrunk’s mental

5

Case 3:21-cv-00413-KHJ-RPM Document 17 Filed 08/02/22 Page 6 of 8

limitations is therefore supported by substantial evidence, and her analysis of these
impairments in the RFC assessment contains no reversible error of law.
B. Consideration of Arthritis in Determining RFC
Sistrunk next asserts that the ALJ erroneously disregarded manipulative
limitations based on arthritis in determining her RFC. [12] at 6. Specifically,
Sistrunk contends that the ALJ should have considered arthritis-based
manipulative limitations based on Dr. Joe Cook’s examination where he noted poor
motion of the wrist joints, reduced grip strength bilaterally, and x-ray evidence of
arthritis. Id.
The Magistrate Judge correctly stated that the ALJ considered Dr. Cook’s
examination. [15] at 9. The ALJ considered Dr. Cook’s opinions and noted that his
findings appeared inconsistent. [9] at 29. The ALJ noted that Dr. Cook “essentially
stated there were no limitations” but “given that he also noted poor motion of the
wrist joints, ex-ray evidence of arthritis[,] and MRI reports showing degenerative
disc disease,” the ALJ found his opinion “only partially persuasive.” Id. at 29–30.
Despite these findings, Dr. Cook himself stated that, in his opinion, Sistrunk had
essentially no work-related limitations. Id. at 863–64.
“[T]he ALJ is entitled to determine the credibility of medical experts as well
as lay witnesses and weigh their opinions accordingly.” Greenspan v. Shalala, 38
F.3d 232, 237 (5th Cir. 1994) (quotations and citation omitted). Therefore, the
Magistrate Judge was correct to conclude that substantial evidence supports the

6

Case 3:21-cv-00413-KHJ-RPM Document 17 Filed 08/02/22 Page 7 of 8

ALJ’s decision to not include arthritis-based manipulative limitations in her
assessment of Sistrunk’s RFC, and there is no reversible error of law.
C. Consideration and Weight of Medical Opinions in Determining RFC
Finally, Sistrunk contends that the ALJ failed to properly consider Dr.
Reginald Bass’s medical opinions. [12] at 7. The Magistrate Judge again correctly
noted that the ALJ considered and weighed Dr. Bass’s opinions. [15] at 9; [9] at 28.
The ALJ explicitly weighed Dr. Bass’s opinions (which were from 2015) with those
from a different state agency medical consultant in 2017. [9] at 28. Providing a
detailed explanation, the ALJ found the more recent state agency medical
consultant’s opinions to be “more persuasive” than those from Dr. Bass in 2015. Id.
Again, “the ALJ is entitled to determine the credibility of medical experts as
well as lay witnesses and weigh their opinions accordingly.” Greenspan, 38 F.3d at
237. Additionally, in applying the substantial evidence standard, the Court “may
not re-weigh the evidence or substitute [its] judgment for that of the
Commissioner.” Harris v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 413,417 (5th Cir. 2000). “A finding of no
substantial evidence is appropriate only if no credible evidentiary choices or medical
findings support the decision.” Id. (citation omitted). The Court therefore finds that
the ALJ’s consideration and weight given to Dr. Bass’s opinions is supported by
substantial evidence and contains no reversible error of law.

7

Case 3:21-cv-00413-KHJ-RPM Document 17 Filed 08/02/22 Page 8 of 8

IV.

Conclusion

The Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law
are correct. For the reasons in the Magistrate Judge’s Report [15] and contained
herein, the decision of the Commissioner should be affirmed.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report and
Recommendation [15] of United States Magistrate Judge Robert P. Myers, Jr.,
entered in this cause should be, and the same is, adopted as the finding of this
Court.
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Commissioner’s
final decision is AFFIRMED, and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
A separate Final Judgment will issue this day.
SO ORDERED, this the 2nd day of August, 2022.
s/ Kristi H. Johnson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8