Goff v. Astrue

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the Commissioner's decision. Accordingly, the Commissioner's decision will be affirmed. A separate order will be entered in accordance with this memorandum opinion. Ordered by Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett. (AOA)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
TROY D. GOFF,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:10CV3023

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court for judicial review of a
final decision of the defendant Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration (“Commissioner”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of
the Social Security Act (the “Act”).

The Commissioner denied Troy

D. Goff’s (“Goff”) application for a period of disability and
disability

insurance

benefits,

finding

Goff

was

not

under

a

disability at any time from the alleged onset date, November 15,
2004, to the date last insured (“DLI”), December 31, 2009.

Upon

review, the Court finds the Commissioner’s decision is supported by
substantial evidence and should be affirmed.
I.

BACKGROUND
Goff was born on August 31, 1968.

(Tr. 20).

Goff has a

high school education and is able to communicate in English.
Goff was trained as a firefighter in the Army.

(Tr. 214).

the Army in 1996, upon his honorable discharge.

Id.

Id.

He left
He then

worked in the dry wall industry, engaging in heavy manual labor
until his alleged disability began on November 15, 2004. (Tr. 214,

218-19).
20).

Goff also worked as an industrial truck driver.

(Tr.

Goff has engaged in odd jobs since 2004– working an hour here

or there, doing favors for friends or assisting with dry wall
activities.

(Tr. 17, 215).

friend hang drywall.

Goff last worked in 2006 by helping a

(Tr. 17).

At the time of his hearing, Goff

had been living at a Salvation Army facility in Grand Island,
Nebraska.

(Tr. 18).

Prior to that, during his period of alleged

disability, he lived in a homeless shelter in North Platte,
Nebraska, and also with his girlfriend’s brother for two years in
North Platte, Nebraska.

Id.

A. Medical Records
Approximately

eleven

years

before

Goff’s

alleged

disability began, in August, 1993, Goff was in a motor vehicle
accident where he ran his car into a pole.
suffered

a

closed-head

injury,

facial

(Tr. 141).

lacerations,

lacerations, including a fractured right tibia.

Goff

and

knee

(Tr. 143).

Goff

had surgery upon admittance, which consisted of an open reduction
internal fixation of his right tibial, bilateral arthrotomies, and
facial laceration closure. (Tr. 145). Subsequent to surgery, Goff
was seen at Rehabilitation Service for ambulation treatment with
endurance and motor strengthening.

(Tr. 141).

He also received

occupational, physical, and cognitive therapy consultations.

Id.

His level of vocal hoarseness was evaluated, but the results were
negative.

Id.

Goff was discharged on August 24, 1993.

-2-

He was

noted to have done very well with his transfers and ambulation, and
he was not prescribed any medication for pain upon release.

Id.

On June 13, 2005, about twelve years later, and almost
one year after his alleged disability began, Goff presented at the
office of David Lindley, M.D., due to a complaint of knee pain
(Tr. 150). Goff reported he was working in the drywall industry at
the time, admitted to a history of substance abuse, and disclosed
he was currently smoking up to three packs of cigarettes a day.
Id.

He also reported he sometimes took over-the-counter pain

medications such as Advil and Tylenol. Id. Upon examination, Goff
demonstrated a decreased range of motion in his right lower leg on
full extension; however, his flexion, pulses, and reflexes were all
good bilaterally.

Id.

Goff was given samples of Mobic, which is

used to treat pain or inflammation, for his symptoms.

Id.

Goff presented to the emergency room the following month
in July, 2005, complaining of right knee pain.

(Tr. 137).

An x-

ray of his right knee was obtained, but it showed no complications
besides mild degenerative changes.

(Tr. 140).

Goff was again

diagnosed with right knee pain and received non-steroidal antiinflammatory medication.

(Tr. 138-39).

Goff returned to Dr. Lindley’s office a month later on
August 1, 2005, complaining of the same knee pain, rating such pain
as a “10" on ten-point scale.

(Tr. 150).

It was noted there was

a lot of crepitus and pain on movement of his right knee.

-3-

Id.

Goff also complained of chronic back pain and some left leg pain.
Id.

Goff claimed he was struggling financially, but would make

plans to see an orthopedic surgeon in September.

Id.

Dr. Lindley

gave Goff narcotic pain medication. Id. Goff missed his follow-up
appointment in September.
On

December

(Tr. 149).

20,

2005,

consultative examination of Goff.

Dr.

Lindley

(Tr. 152-156).

completed

a

Dr. Lindley

noted that Goff was not currently taking any medication for pain
because he claimed he could not afford it.

(Tr. 153).

Dr. Lindley

reported that Goff had marked reduction in his range of movement,
particularly in his right knee.

Id.

Goff also demonstrated pain

in his lower lumbar spine, and reduction in range of movement of
his spine and hips due to his right-knee pain.
use a cane at this time.

(Tr. 19).

Id.

Goff did not

An x-ray of Goff’s right knee

was again obtained, showing loss of joint space with some sclerotic
change consistent with osteoarthritis.

(Tr. 153).

An x-ray was

also obtained of Goff’s spine, showing loss of lumbar lordosis and
some osteophyte formation and arthritis.

Id.

On the basis of

Goff’s history and this evaluation, Dr. Lindley found that Goff has
some joint abnormalities which “prevent[ed] him from doing heavy
work.”

(Tr. 154).

Goff also claimed he had to constantly change

positions when sitting due to back pain.

Id.

At the request of the state on January 27, 2006, Jerry
Reed,

M.D.,

a

state

Disability

-4-

Determination

Service

(“DDS”)

physician,

completed

a

physical

residual

functional

capacity

(“RFC”) assessment based on review of Goff’s file (Tr. 29, 164).
Dr. Reed indicated that his assessment was consistent with Dr.
Lindley’s opinion that Goff could not perform heavy work.
164).

(Tr.

Dr. Reed further opined that Goff could lift 20 pounds

occasionally and 10 pounds frequently, and sit, stand and/or walk
for a total of six hours in an eight hour work day.

(Tr. 158).

Dr. Reed also found that Goff should never crouch or crawl, but he
could occasionally climb, balance, stoop, and kneel.

(Tr. 159).

At the request of the state on April 11, 2006, Glen
Knosp, M.D., a DDS physician, completed an updated physical RFC
assessment based on review of Goff’s file (Tr. 165-72).

His

findings were largely consistent with Dr. Reed’s findings, except
that he found Goff could only stand and/or walk for at least two
hours in an eight hour work day.

(Tr. 166).

Also, he found that

Goff had limited ability to push or pull with his legs.

Id.

He

did, however, find that Goff could occasionally crouch or crawl.
(Tr. 167).
On March 23, 2007, Goff again presented to the emergency
room, complaining of leg pain and swelling over the last three
months.

(Tr. 181-83).

He was examined by David Hurst, M.D.

Id.

Dr. Hurst observed mild tenderness in Goff’s left knee, and joint
effusion, however, there was no swelling, deformity, or limitation
in range of motion.

(Tr. 182).

There was also no motor deficit or

-5-

sensory deficit.

Id.

Dr. Hurst diagnosed arthritis of the left

knee and advised Goff to ice his knee and elevate his leg until it
improved and also prescribed narcotic pain medication.
reported a pain level of a “4" on a ten-point scale.

Id.

Goff

(Tr. 179).

B. Goff’s Reported Symptoms
At the July 30, 2008 hearing, Goff reported he felt
constant pain in his legs, at the level of a “6" on a ten-point
scale, and that he had to constantly change positions due to such
pain.

(Tr. 215-16, 223).

Goff reported, however, he had not

sought medical care in over a year, he did not use a cane, and that
he took over-the-counter pain relievers “once in a while” when he
experienced headaches.

(Tr. 215-16).

He also testified that he

could sit for twenty to thirty minutes, stand for about twenty
minutes at a time, and lift up to 15 pounds.
reported concentration and memory problems.

Id.

Goff also

(Tr. 213, 222).

C. Procedural Background
On November 14, 2005, and November 18, 2005, Goff applied
for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income
payments, alleging he became disabled on November 15, 2004.
14).

Goff’s claims were denied initially on February 1, 2006, and

upon reconsideration on April 11, 2006.
filed

(Tr.

a

timely

written

request

for

Id.
a

Thereafter, Goff

hearing

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) on May 17, 2006.

Id.

before

an

On July 30,

2008, Goff appeared in North Platte, Nebraska with counsel and the
-6-

ALJ held an administrative hearing.

Id.

Goff testified as did

Judith L. Najarian, an impartial vocational expert.

(Tr. 14-21).

In a decision dated August 19, 2008, the ALJ found that Goff was
not disabled at any time from the alleged onset date through the
DLI.

Id.
In evaluating Goff’s claim, the ALJ followed the five-

step sequential evaluation process set forth in 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520(a).1

At step one, the ALJ found that Goff did not engage

1

The ALJ performs the following five-step sequential
analysis to determine whether a claimant is disabled:
At the first step, the claimant
must establish that he has not
engaged in substantial gainful
activity. The second step requires
that the claimant prove he has a
severe impairment that
significantly limits his physical
or mental ability to perform basic
work activities. If, at the third
step, the claimant shows that his
impairment meets or equals a
presumptively disabling impairment
listed in the regulations, the
analysis stops and the claimant is
automatically found disabled and is
entitled to benefits. If the
claimant cannot carry this burden,
however, step four requires that
the claimant prove he lacks the RFC
to perform his past relevant work.
Finally, if the claimant
establishes that he cannot perform
his past relevant work, the burden
shifts to the Commissioner at the
fifth step to prove that there are
other jobs in the national economy
that the claimant can perform.
-7-

in substantial gainful activity (“SGA”) during the period from his
alleged onset date of November 15, 2004, through his DLI of
December 31, 2009 (Tr. 16).

At step two, the ALJ found Goff had

the severe medical impairment of injury to the back and legs; the
ALJ found Goff did not have any severe mental impairments relating
to Goff’s alleged concentration problems (Tr. 16-17).

At step

three, the ALJ found Goff’s impairment does not meet or medically
equal one of the listed presumptively disabling impairments (Tr.
17).

At step four, the ALJ found that through the DLI, Goff:
has the RFC to lift and carry 20
pounds on occasion and 10 pounds
frequently; stand and/or walk two
hours out of eight; sit for six
hours out of eight; and occasionally
climb,
balance,
stoop,
kneel,
crouch, and crawl.

Id.

The ALJ found that based on his RFC, Goff was unable to

perform his past relevant work as a drywall finisher or a truck
driver.

(Tr. 20).

However, at step five, the ALJ found that Goff

was able to perform other light and sedentary jobs that existed in
significant numbers in the national economy.

(Tr. 20-21).

The

Appeals Council denied Goff’s request for review; therefore, the
ALJ’s decision stands as the final decision of the Commissioner and
is subject to judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Gonzales v. Barnhart, 465 F.3d 890, 894 (8th Cir. 2006).
-8-

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court reviews the record “. . . to determine whether

the Commissioner’s findings are supported by substantial evidence
on the record as a whole.”

Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010, 1012

(8th Cir. 2000) (quoting Clark v. Apfel, 141 F.3d 1253, 1255 (8th
Cir. 1998)).

“Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance,

but is enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to
support the Commissioner’s conclusion.”

Id.

“[The Court] may not

reverse the Commissioner’s decision merely because substantial
evidence supports a contrary outcome.”

Id. (quoting Warburton v.

Apfel, 188 F.3d 1047, 1050 (8th Cir. 1999)).
III.

DISCUSSION
On appeal, Goff asserts several arguments alleging this

Court reverse and/or remand the final decision of the ALJ.

The

issue in a Social Security case is whether the Commissioner’s final
decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a
whole.

The specific issues presented by this case are 1) whether

the ALJ properly assessed Goff’s credibility, 2) whether the ALJ
properly determined Goff’s RFC, and 3) whether substantial evidence
supports the ALJ’s finding that Goff could perform other work.
A. Credibility Assessment
Goff claims the ALJ improperly discredited his testimony
concerning his pain and mental condition.

An ALJ’s credibility

findings must be supported by substantial evidence.
-9-

Robinson v.

Sullivan, 956 F.2d 836, 839 (8th Cir. 1992).

If the ALJ gives a

“good” reason for discrediting the claimant that is supported by
the record, the Court will defer to the ALJ’s judgment.

See

Dunahoo v. Apfel, 241 F.3d 1033, 1038 (8th Cir. 2001) (quoting
Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984)).
For the most part, the ALJ found Goff credible, as the
ALJ agreed with Goff that Goff could no longer engage in his past
work as a heavy laborer in the dry wall industry.

The ALJ only

discredited Goff on the fact that Goff claimed he could not engage
in any work activity at all.

As the government points out, the ALJ

observed that Goff’s alleged disability is based on injuries that
occurred as a result of a 1993 car accident.

In light of these

injuries, Goff continued to engaged in heavy manual labor until
2004.

(Tr. 19, 214).

A claimant’s ability to work despite

impairments, “coupled with the absence of evidence of significant
deterioration” since the time the claimant last worked, suggests
that claimant can still work.

See Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785,

792

fact

(8th

Cir.

2005)

(“the

that

Goff

worked

with

the

impairments for over three years after her strokes, coupled with
the

absence

of

evidence

of

significant

deterioration

in

her

condition, demonstrate the impairments are not disabling in the
present.”)
Further, while Goff alleged concentration and memory
problems, also occurring as a result of his car accident, these

-10-

issues did not prevent him from working in the past, and there was
no medical evidence on the record suggesting that Goff’s physical
or mental condition suddenly deteriorated at the time he alleged
his disability began.

Thus, the Court finds the ALJ’s credibility

assessment concerning Goff was supported by good reasons and is
consistent with the substantial evidence of the record.

Further,

the record as a whole does not demonstrate the ALJ should have
further obtained some sort of consultive examination as to Goff’s
alleged mental problems.

Thus, the ALJ’s credibility findings

should be affirmed.
B. RFC
A claimant’s RFC is the most he can do despite the
combined effect of his credible limitations.

See 20 C.F.R. § §

404.1545, 416.945 (2010). It is the claimant’s burden to prove his
RFC at step four of the sequential evaluation, and it is the ALJ’s
responsibility to determine RFC based on all relevant evidence,
including medical opinions.

See Harris v. Barnhart, 356 F.3d 926,

930 (8th Cir. 2004).
Goff
largely

based

claims
on

the

the
fact

ALJ’s
that

RFC
in

assessment
Dr.

is

incorrect,

Lindley’s

consultive

examination, Dr. Lindley noted Goff claimed he had to constantly
change positions when seated due to his pain. (Tr. 154). However,
such was not a finding of Dr. Lindely, only a notation made in a
section of his assessment that Goff could not longer engage in

-11-

“heavy work.”

Id.

As the ALJ gave good reasons for doubting

Goff’s subjective complaints of pain, he was not obligated to
credit this particular complaint.

See Tindell v. Barnhart, 444

F.3d 1002, 1007 (8th Cir. 2006) (“The ALJ included all of Tindell’s
credible

limitations

in

his

RFC

assessment,

and

the

ALJ’s

conclusions are supported by substantial evidence on the record.”)
That being said, the ALJ did give considerable weight to Dr.
Lindley’s opinion, as he also found Goff could no longer engage in
heavy work, which was consistent with the opinions of the nonexamining physicians.

(Tr. 19, 158-64, 165-72).

The ALJ considered all of the evidence on the record, and
sufficiently found that Goff is now restricted to sedentary work,
a

significant

supporting

that

accounted

for

(Tr.

limitations.

restriction

Goff

points

no

greater

19).

limitations

than

to

the

ALJ

all

of

medical

Goff’s
opinion

assigned.

As

substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC finding, it should be
affirmed.
C. Goff’s Ability to Perform Other Work
The ALJ found that Goff could not perform his past
relevant work as a drywall finisher.

Thus, the burden shifted to

the Commissioner to prove that there were other jobs in the
national economy that Goff could perform. (Tr. 19).
§ § 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v) (2010).

See 20 C.F.R.

The ALJ met this

burden by questioning a vocational expert about a hypothetical

-12-

claimant with a RFC identical to Goff’s.

(Tr. 229).

See Cox v.

Astrue, 495 F.3d 614, 620 (8th Cir. 2007) (a vocational expert’s
response to a complete and correctly-phrased hypothetical provides
substantial evidence for the ALJ’s step-five conclusion).

The

vocational expert testified that Goff could work as an office
clerk, information clerk, and hand laborer.

(Tr. 229).

Although the vocational expert did testify that if Goff
also had occasional problems maintaining attention, concentration,
and pace, no jobs would exist in the national economy that Goff
could perform, Goff failed to establish through objective medical
evidence
problems.

that

he

suffered

(Tr. 230-31).

attention,

concentration,

or

pace

In fact, as the government points out,

Goff did not discuss significant mental problems with the medical
sources who treated him.
concentration

or

memory

As there was no medical basis for
problems,

disability based on these issues.

Goff

cannot

establish

a

The ALJ’s findings concerning

Goff’s ability to perform other work should be affirmed.
IV. CONCLUSION
Substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports
the Commissioner’s decision.
decision will be affirmed.

Accordingly, the Commissioner’s

A separate order will be entered in

accordance with this memorandum opinion.
DATED this 17th day of May, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
S/ F.A. Gossett, III
United States Magistrate Judge

-13-