Johnson v. Berryhill

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED, and plaintiff's complaint (#1) is DISMISSED with prejudice. A separate judgment will accompany this Order. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 9/12/2018. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
TABBATHA JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:18-cv-00017-SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denied plaintiff Tabbatha
Johnson’s applications for Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social
Security Act. Johnson now seeks judicial review. (#14). The Commissioner opposes the
motion (#19), Johnson filed a reply (#20), and, being fully briefed, the issue is ripe for
determination. For the reasons set forth, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
I.

Procedural History
Johnson’s application was denied at the initial determination level. She then

appeared before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). The ALJ found Johnson is not
disabled because she can perform work that exists in substantial numbers in the national
economy. Johnson then filed a request for review of the ALJ’s decision with the Appeals
Council of the Social Security Administration. The Appeals Council denied review.
Thus, the decision of the ALJ stands as the final decision of the Commissioner. See 20

1

C.F.R. §§ 404.981, 416.1481. Johnson now seeks review by this Court pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 405(g).
II.

Disability Determination—Five Steps
A disability is defined as the “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity

by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which . . . has
lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months[.]” 42
U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). A claimant has a disability “only if his physical
or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do
his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience,
engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national
economy[.]” Id. §§ 423(d)(2)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(B).
The Commissioner follows a five-step sequential process when evaluating whether
the claimant has a disability. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(1), 416.920(a)(1). First, the
Commissioner considers the claimant’s work activity. If the claimant is engaged in
substantial gainful activity, the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i),
416.920(a)(4)(i).
Second, if the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, the
Commissioner looks to see “whether the claimant has a severe impairment that
significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work
activities.” Dixon v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 602, 605 (8th Cir. 2003); see also 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). “An impairment is not severe if it amounts only to
a slight abnormality that would not significantly limit the claimant’s physical or mental
2

ability to do basic work activities.” Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 707 (8th Cir. 2007);
see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1520a(d), 416.920(c), 416.920a(d).
Third, if the claimant has a severe impairment, the Commissioner considers the
impairment’s medical severity. If the impairment meets or equals one of the
presumptively disabling impairments listed in the regulations, the claimant is considered
disabled, regardless of age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520(a)(4)(iii), (d); 416.920(a)(3)(iii), (d).
Fourth, if the claimant’s impairment is severe, but it does not meet or equal one of
the presumptively disabling impairments, the Commissioner assesses whether the
claimant retains the “residual functional capacity” (RFC) to perform his or her past
relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 404.1545(a)(5)(i), 416.920(a)(4)(iv),
416.945(a)(5)(i). An RFC is “defined wholly in terms of the claimant’s physical ability
to perform exertional tasks or, in other words, what the claimant can still do despite his or
her physical or mental limitations.” Lewis v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 642, 646 (8th Cir. 2003)
(internal quotations omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). While
an RFC must be based “on all relevant evidence, including the medical records,
observations of treating physicians and others, and an individual’s own description of his
limitations,” an RFC is nonetheless an “administrative assessment”—not a medical
assessment—and therefore “it is the responsibility of the ALJ, not a physician, to
determine a claimant’s RFC.” Boyd v. Colvin, 831F.3d 1015, 1020 (8th Cir. 2016). Thus,
“there is no requirement that an RFC finding be supported by a specific medical
opinion.” Hensley v. Colvin, 829 F.3d 926, 932 (8th Cir. 2016). Ultimately, the claimant
3

is responsible for providing evidence relating to his RFC and the Commissioner is
responsible for developing the claimant’s “complete medical history, including arranging
for a consultative examination(s) if necessary, and making every reasonable effort to help
[the claimant] get medical reports from [the claimant’s] own medical sources.” 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3). If, upon the findings of the ALJ, it is determined the
claimant retains the RFC to perform past relevant work, he or she is not disabled. 20
C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv).
Fifth, if the claimant’s RFC does not allow the claimant to perform past relevant
work, the burden of production to show the claimant maintains the RFC to perform work
that exists in significant numbers in the national economy shifts to the Commissioner.
See Bladow v. Apfel, 205 F.3d 356, 358–59 n.5 (8th Cir. 2000); 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). If the claimant can make an adjustment to other
work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy, the Commissioner finds
the claimant not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)( v). If the
claimant cannot make an adjustment to other work, the Commissioner finds the claimant
disabled. Id. At Step Five, even though the burden of production shifts to the
Commissioner, the burden of persuasion to prove disability remains on the claimant.
Stormo v. Barnhart, 377 F.3d 801, 806 (8th Cir. 2004).
III.

The ALJ’s Decision
At Step One, the ALJ found Johnson met the insured status requirements through

March 31, 2018, and had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since July 31, 2014,
the “amended alleged onset date.” (Tr. 29). At Step Two, the ALJ found Johnson suffers
4

from five severe physical impairments: (1) sickle cell anemia, (2) degenerative disc
disease, (3) major depressive disorder; (4) PTSD; and (5) intellectual disability. (Tr. 29).
At Step Three, the ALJ concluded Johnson does not have an impairment or combination
of impairments that meets or equals one of the presumptively disabling impairments
listed in the regulations. (Tr. 30).
Next, in beginning the analysis of Step Four, the ALJ determined Johnson’s RFC.1
The ALJ found that Johnson
has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20
C.F.R. 404.1567(b) that includes being limited to the occasional climbing
of ramps and stairs; no climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; occasional
balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling; frequent reaching,
handling, fingering, and feeling; avoiding all exposure to moving
machinery and unprotected heights; simple, routine and repetitive tasks in
an environment free of fast-paced production requirements, involving only
simple, work-related decisions with few, if any, workplace changes; casual
and infrequent contact with co-workers with no tandem tasks; occasional
contact with supervisors; and job requirements that do not involve public
interaction.
(Tr. 35). As part of this determination, the ALJ found Johnson’s allegations about
her symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and limiting effects are not entirely consistent with
the medical evidence and other evidence in the record. (Tr. 36). The ALJ noted Johnson
had sought and received medical treatment for both her physical and mental symptoms
through numerous and regular trips to medical providers, which established she had
certain limitations as reflected in those visits; however, the ALJ concluded that, while the

1

In the past, there has been some confusion as to when the RFC is determined, which affects who holds the burden
of proof in establishing an appropriate RFC. In this Circuit, it has been held that “the RFC is used at both step four
and five of the evaluation process, but it is determined at step four, where the burden of proof rests with the
claimant.” Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 793 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065, 1069 n. 5 (8th
Cir. 2000)).

5

record reflected certain limitations, such limitations were not greater than those shown in
the reduced, light-work RFC assigned to Johnson. In so concluding, the ALJ gave
varying weight to six different sources for Johnson’s physical and mental function, while
notably giving “great weight” to Dr. Armour—the only psychological consultative
examiner to conduct objective psychiatric testing—who found Johnson had no limits in
carrying out simple instructions, but had moderate limitations in the area of social
functioning and a weakness in “processing speed on timed tasks.” (Tr. 39, 41-42).
With an RFC determination in hand, the ALJ continued on through Step Four to
determine whether Johnson can perform her past relevant work given her designated
RFC. The ALJ determined that Johnson cannot perform any past relevant work. This
determination is consistent with testimony given by the vocational expert (“VE”). (Tr.
433).
At Step Five, the ALJ analyzed whether Johnson can successfully adjust to other
work. The ALJ noted that if Johnson had the RFC to perform the full range of light
work—in other words, if Johnson’s RFC matched perfectly with the light work MedicalVocational Guidelines (the “Grids”)—then the Grids would direct a finding of not
disabled; but, additional limitations impede Johnson’s ability to perform all or
substantially all of the light work requirements. Thus, the ALJ relied on VE testimony to
determine the extent to which these limitations erode Johnson’s occupational base to
perform light work. The VE testified Johnson is able to perform work as an electrical
assembler, housekeeper, or mail clerk, even after considering all of the limitations in

6

Johnson’s RFC. (Tr. 433-434). The ALJ then found these jobs exist in significant
numbers in the national economy and concluded Johnson is not disabled. (Tr. 43-44).
IV.

Standard of Review
The Court must affirm the Commissioner’s decision if it is supported by

substantial evidence on the record as a whole. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g); 1383(c)(3).
Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance of the evidence but enough that a
reasonable person would find it adequate to support the conclusion. Johnson v. Apfel,
240 F.3d 1145, 1147 (8th Cir. 2001). This “substantial evidence test,” however, is “more
than a mere search of the record for evidence supporting the [Commissioner’s] findings.”
Coleman v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 767, 770 (8th Cir. 2007) (alteration in original) (quoting
Gavin v. Heckler, 811 F.2d 1195, 1199 (8th Cir. 1987)). The Court must also consider
any evidence that fairly detracts from the Commissioner’s decision. Id. “[I]f there is
substantial evidence on the record as a whole, [the Court] must affirm the administrative
decision, even if the record could also have supported an opposite decision.” Weikert v.
Sullivan, 977 F.2d 1249, 1252 (8th Cir. 1992). In reviewing whether the ALJ’s decision
was supported by substantial evidence, this Court does not substitute its own judgment
for that of the ALJ—even if different conclusions could be drawn from the evidence, and
even if this Court may have reached a different outcome. McNamara v. Astrue, 590 F.3d
607, 610 (8th Cir. 2010).
V.

Discussion
Johnson makes only one argument in her brief. She argues the ALJ’s RFC finding,

limiting her to “simple, routine, and repetitive tasks in an environment free of fast-past
7

production requirements involving only simple, work-related decisions with few, if any,
workplace changes,” does not comport with the limitations indicated by Dr. Armour—
one of the medical providers relied upon by the ALJ. (#14, p. 9). In Johnson’s view, “the
ALJ’s reasoning, articulated in the written decision, leads to a different result.” (#20, p.
2). Thus, Johnson “asks this Court to consider the ALJ’s reasoning, [Dr Armour’s]
opinion given great weight by the ALJ, and the uncontradicted evidence in the record …
[which] should have produced a different RFC finding.” (#20, p.3)
A.

The ALJ’s Decision is Supported by Substantial Evidence and
Encompasses the Views of the Medical Providers the ALJ Relied Upon

It is not altogether clear what Johnson is arguing, though she appears to take issue
with the fact the ALJ added a pacing restriction (“free of fast-paced production
requirements”) and social restrictions (“few, if any, workplace changes; casual and
infrequent contact with co-workers; occasional contact with supervisors; and job
requirements that do not involve public interaction”) to Johnson’s light-work RFC. (#14,
p. 9). Johnson seeks a different RFC, but this Court cannot determine what that RFC
might be—Johnson does not say. As best as can be understood, Johnson disputes the fact
the ALJ gave her additional restrictions above those articulated by Dr. Armour. To the
extent Johnson is asking this Court to second-guess the ALJ’s ultimate decision based on
its own assessment of the evidence, the Court declines to do so. See McNamara, 590 F.3d
at 610 (“if substantial evidence supports the decision, [the court] may not reverse, even if
inconsistent conclusions may be drawn from the evidence”).

8

Johnson’s position is somewhat elucidated by the cases she relies upon, citing
Fiala v. Berryhill, 2017 WL 976933 (E.D.Mo. Mar. 13, 2017), Green v. Colvin, 2015 WL
4232759 (E.D. Mo. Jul. 13, 2015), and Coley v. Colvin, 2015 WL 1178631 (E.D. Mo.
Mar. 13, 2015). All three cases reversed the ALJ’s decision, with the commonality
between them being that the ALJ failed to buttress each conclusion reached as to a
claimant’s RFC with specific, supporting medical evidence. See Fiala, 2017 WL 976933
at *16 (“the ALJ engaged in no discussion or analysis of any evidence as relates to
Fiala’s RFC … the ALJ’s RFC assessment must discuss and describe how the evidence
supports each conclusion”); Green, 2015 WL 4232759 at *14 (“An AJ’s RFC assessment
must discuss and describe how the evidence supports each conclusion … the ALJ failed
to engage in this process here … the ALJ’s RFC analysis shows it to consist only of
discrediting Plaintiff’s subjective complaints as well as a recitation of what the medical
evidence did not show”); Coley, 2015 WL 1178631 at *14 (“a review of the ALJ’s
decision shows the RFC assessment to consist of nothing more than the ALJ’s recitation
of evidence that served to discredit plaintiff’s subjective complaints and the opinion
evidence from Dr. Boehmer. The ALJ engaged in no discussion or analysis of the
evidence … as relates to plaintiff’s RFC”).
These cases are not well taken here. First, Johnson incorrectly narrows her focus
to a single medical provider when suggesting the “clinical observations made by Dr.
Armour do not support the RFC.” (#20, p. 2). The ALJ was under no compulsion to rely
solely on Dr. Armour. Hensley, 829 F.3d at 932 (8th Cir. 2016) (“there is no requirement
that an RFC finding be supported by a specific medical opinion”). Second, the ALJ’s
9

conclusions as to pacing and social restrictions are clearly supported elsewhere in the
record that was relied upon. (Tr. 448-449, 759-760, 1387-1388). Finally, the ALJ’s
conclusions are, in fact, “encompassed” by Dr. Armour’s findings, which is all that is
necessary. Winn v. Commissioner, 894 F.3d 982, 987 (8th Cir. 2018) (ALJ’s RFC
limitation conclusion that claimant could “frequently handle, finger, and feel”—rather
than claimant’s desired “occasionally handle, finger, and feel” limitation—was
sufficiently encompassed by credited medical provider’s finding that claimant would
have “manipulative limitations”). Indeed, in his Medical Source Statement, Dr. Armour
clearly indicates a moderate social impairment, prompting the ALJ to address that
concern through an additional restriction. (Tr. 35, 41-42, 1443). Dr. Armour indicates this
impairment elsewhere in the record as well. (Tr. 1437-1438). Moreover, Dr. Armour
mentions Johnson’s “weaker areas came on measures of her … processing speed on
timed tasks” that, again, prompted the ALJ to address such concern through an additional
restriction. (Tr. 35, 39, 1435).
This case is simply not like those cited-to by Johnson. At minimum, the record
makes clear Dr. Armour believed, from a mental perspective, that Johnson could
accomplish simple tasks—exactly the RFC given to Johnson. (Tr. 35, 41-42, 1442). To
the extent Johnson is arguing the ALJ then gave her additional restrictions that were
unsupported by the evidence (as if to give her the benefit of the doubt), such criticisms
are insufficient to overturn the ALJ’s decision—and, regardless, these restrictions were
supported here for the reasons already stated. See, e.g., Derryberry v. Berryhill, 2017 WL
1194458 at *8 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 30, 2017) (affirming ALJ decision who, in giving claimant
10

the benefit of the doubt, included an RFC limitation for simple, routine, and repetitive
tasks to account for claimant’s migraines despite lack of supporting objective medical
evidence) ; Lee v. Berryhill, 2018 WL 793595 at *5 (D. Me. Feb. 8, 2018) (“[i]n
circumstances in which an ALJ supportably rejects a treating physician opinion but
otherwise gives the claimant the benefit of the doubt by adopting an RFC more favorable
to the claimant than those set forth in expert opinions on which the ALJ otherwise could
have relied, remand is unwarranted”). Put simply, whether or not this Court may have
come to the same conclusion as the ALJ, it appears clear the ALJ’s chosen RFC was
based on substantial evidence from the record—he was not required, as urged by
Johnson, to completely mirror Dr. Armour’s medical findings. See Boyd, 831F.3d at 1020
(8th Cir. 2016) (an RFC determination, while it must be based on “all relevant evidence”
to include “the medical records [and] observations of treating physicians,” is nonetheless
an “administrative assessment” to be decided by the ALJ, not a physician); Hensley, 829
F.3d at 932 (8th Cir. 2016).
VI.

Conclusion
This Court’s review is limited to determining whether the ALJ’s findings are

based on correct legal standards and supported by substantial evidence. It does not
substitute its own judgment for that of the ALJ. McNamara, 590 F.3d at 610. Having
found the ALJ’s conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and that legal
standards were correctly applied, this Court affirms the ALJ’s decision.

11

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED,
and plaintiff’s complaint (#1) is DISMISSED with prejudice. A separate judgment will
accompany this Order.

So ordered this 12th day of September 2018.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12