Argenbright v. Astrue
Filing
13
ORDER and OPINION reversing Commissioner's final decision and remanding for further proceedings. Signed on 12/26/2012 by District Judge Ortrie D. Smith. (Will-Fees, Eva)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION
CHAD ARGENBRIGHT,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 11-4350-CV-SW-ODS-SSA
ORDER AND OPINION REVERSING COMMISSIONER’S FINAL DECISION
AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
Pending is Plaintiff’s appeal of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final
decision denying his application for disability and supplemental security income
benefits. The Commissioner’s decision is reversed and the case is remanded for further
proceedings.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff was born January 21, 1972, and has a high school education.
He
alleges he became disabled on February 1, 2001, due to spine and carpal tunnel
impairments.
The ALJ applied the five-step process for analyzing disability claims. The ALJ
determined Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged
onset date. The ALJ found Plaintiff has a severe impairment of status post lumbar disc
disease. At step three, the ALJ determined Plaintiff’s ailments do not meet or equal a
listed impairment. For steps four and five, the ALJ concluded Plaintiff has the residual
functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and
416.967(b) except can occasionally bend forward at the waist, occasionally bend at the
knees to come to rest on knees, and occasionally bend downward by bending legs and
spine. Next, the ALJ found Plaintiff is unable to perform any past relevant work, but
there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff can
perform. Finally, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff is not disabled.
II. STANDARD
“[R]eview of the Secretary’s decision [is limited] to a determination whether the
decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Substantial
evidence is evidence which reasonable minds would accept as adequate to support the
Secretary’s conclusion. [The Court] will not reverse a decision simply because some
evidence may support the opposite conclusion.” Mitchell v. Shalala, 25 F.3d 712, 714
(8th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). Though advantageous to the Commissioner, this
standard also requires that the Court consider evidence that fairly detracts from the final
decision.
Forsythe v. Sullivan, 926 F.2d 774, 775 (8th Cir. 1991) (citing Hutsell v.
Sullivan, 892 F.2d 747, 749 (8th Cir. 1989)). Substantial evidence means “more than a
mere scintilla” of evidence; rather, it is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Gragg v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 932, 938 (8th
Cir. 2010).
III. DISCUSSION
1. The ALJ Properly Considered All the Relevant Evidence
Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred in determining Plaintiff’s RFC by failing to consider
all the relevant evidence. The Court disagrees.
A five-step sequential evaluation process is used by the Commissioner to assess
disability claims. See Stormo v. Barnhart, 377 F.3d 801, 806 (8th Cir. 2004) (citing 20
C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)-(f)).
During the five-step process, the ALJ considers (1) whether the claimant is
gainfully employed, (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment, (3)
whether the impairment meets the criteria of any Social Security Income listings,
(4) whether the impairment prevents the claimant from performing past relevant
work, and (5) whether the impairment necessarily prevents the claimant from
doing any other work.
2
Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 790 (8th Cir. 2005). Step four of the analysis requires
the ALJ to determine the claimant’s RFC. Id.
First, Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred in determining Plaintiff’s RFC because the
ALJ stated Plaintiff has no evidence of sensory loss. Plaintiff argues the ALJ failed to
consider evidence that William Hopkins, MD, examined Plaintiff on January 29, 2010,
who indicated Plaintiff had sensory loss. The Court disagrees. When discussing his
findings for step three of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ stated, “[t]here is no
evidence of reflex loss, motor loss, sensory loss, muscle atrophy, positive straight leg
raising or other findings to meet the requirements for listed musculoskeletal
impairments.” R. 11. The ALJ was not saying there was no evidence whatsoever of
sensory loss, but rather that there was insufficient sensory loss to meet the listed
impairment. This determination had no bearing on Plaintiff’s RFC because the analysis
did not stop at step four. Further, when determining the RFC at step four, the ALJ
considered the medical facts that resulted from Plaintiff’s examination at the Missouri
Spine Center in January and February 2010. R. 13-14. The Record reflects that Dr.
Hopkins was the medical provider at the Missouri Spine Center. R. 241-44. The ALJ
properly considered the evidence from Dr. Hopkins’s medical assessment when
determining Plaintiff’s RFC.
Next, Plaintiff argues the ALJ improperly determined Plaintiff had no positive
straight leg raise when two medical providers, Theresa Campbell, RN, and Dr. Hopkins,
opined that Plaintiff had pain during the straight leg raising test. Once again, the ALJ’s
determination that there was no evidence of a positive straight leg raise was made for
the purpose of concluding that Plaintiff’s ailments did not meet a listed impairment at
step three. The ALJ stated “[t]here is no evidence of . . . positive straight leg raising or
other findings to meet the requirements for listed musculoskeletal impairments. R. 11.
The ALJ never indicated there was no evidence of a positive straight leg test
whatsoever. At step four, the ALJ took Ms. Campbell’s and Dr. Hopkins’s assessments
into consideration when determining Plaintiff’s RFC. R. 13-14. When addressing Ms.
Campbell’s assessment, the ALJ noted “[s]traight leg raise on the right elicited pain in
3
his back.” R. 13. The Court finds that the ALJ properly considered evidence that two
medical providers opined that Plaintiff had pain during the straight leg raising test.
Plaintiff also makes other arguments that the ALJ improperly failed to discuss all
relevant objective testing including the results of Plaintiff’s x-ray of the thoracic spine
and an MRI of the lumbar spine. The Court finds the ALJ did consider this evidence as
the ALJ’s opinion specifically makes references to the results of these tests. R. 14-15.
Finally, Plaintiff contends the RFC was improperly assessed because the ALJ
failed to discuss Plaintiff’s obesity. Nothing in Plaintiff’s medical records indicates that a
physician ever placed physical limitations on Plaintiff’s ability to perform work-related
functions because of his obesity. See McNamara v. Astrue, 590 F.3d 607, 611 (8th Cir.
2010). Doctors noted Plaintiff’s obesity, but never noted any work-related restrictions
due to the obesity. The Record is void of any evidence that Plaintiff’s obesity results in
work-related limitations, and it was not reversible error for the ALJ’s opinion to omit a
specific discussion of obesity. McNamara, 590 F.3d at 611.
2. The ALJ Failed to Properly Link his RFC to the Substantial Evidence of Record
Finally, Plaintiff contends the ALJ’s RFC determination was improperly assessed
because the ALJ did not perform a function-by-function analysis pursuant to Social
Security Ruling 96-8p.
Specifically, Plaintiff argues the ALJ failed to assess any
restrictions based on Plaintiff’s limited ability to sit, stand, walk, push/pull, and the need
to limit exposure to vibrations. The Court agrees.
The issue of what, if any, limitations Plaintiff has in his ability to sit, stand,
push/pull, and the need to limit exposure to vibrations, have not been resolved. The
ALJ stated he accepted the limitations provided from the State Agency medical
consultant. The State Agency’s assessment stated that Plaintiff would be able to:
lift 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently, stand and/or walk for 2
hours in an 8 hour day, sit for 6 hours in an 8 hour day, and push/pull limited in
the upper extremities to avoid constant flexion extension activities with bilateral
hands. Argenbright was limited to occasional climbing (of all kinds), stooping,
and crouching. Argenbright was also to avoid concentrated exposure to
vibrations.
4
R. 322-324.
However, the ALJ failed to address any of these limitations when
discussing claimant’s RFC. This error is not cured by looking at the testimony from the
administrative hearing because the ALJ did not pose a hypothetical to the vocational
expert (“VE”) regarding limitations to sitting, standing, pushing/pulling, or exposure to
vibrations. There is no indication as to how the ALJ resolved this evidence. If the ALJ
accepted the State Agency’s assessment in its entirety, the final decision must be
reversed because the RFC (and the hypothetical posed to the VE) did not incorporate
all of Plaintiff’s limitations.
If the ALJ rejected the State Agency’s assessment of
Plaintiff’s ability to sit, stand, and walk, the case must be reversed because the ALJ did
not give reasons for reaching this conclusion.
There is not substantial evidence in the Record as a whole to support the final
decision because it cannot be reconciled with the opinion expressed by the State
Agency medical consultant. The State agency describes limitations greater than those
found by the ALJ. It may be that there are reasons to reject or discount the State
Agency’s conclusions, and it may be that Plaintiff is capable of working notwithstanding
the limitations, but determinations of this sort are to be made initially at the
administrative level, not by the Court.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Commission’s final decision is reversed and the case is remanded for further
proceedings. On remand, the Commissioner shall make findings regarding Plaintiff’s
RFC, including particularly the limitations suggested by the State Agency.
The
Commissioner shall also reconsider the conclusions at steps four and five, eliciting
additional testimony from a vocational expert if necessary.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Ortrie D. Smith
ORTRIE D. SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DATE: November 26, 2012
5
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?