Larsen v. Colvin
Filing
21
MEMORANDUM OPINION - Substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the ALJ's findings. The Commissioners denial of plaintiff's benefits claim will be affirmed. A separate order will be entered in accordance with this memorandum opinion. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (GJG)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
LORIE LARSEN,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
)
Commissioner of the Social
)
Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)
8:13CV313
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court for review, pursuant to
42 U.S.C. 405(g), of the decision of defendant Commissioner of
the Social Security Administration(“SSA”) denying social security
disability benefits (“SSD benefits”) to plaintiff Lorie Larsen
(“Larsen”).
Upon review, the Court finds the decision of the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) is supported by substantial
evidence and should be affirmed.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Larsen filed an application for disability insurance
benefits on September 29, 2010 (Tr. 137-43).
The SSA initially
denied her application on January 12, 2011, and again upon
reconsideration on June 3, 2011 (Tr. 87-90, 92-95).
On September
June 29, 2011, Larsen filed a request for hearing and ALJ Jan E.
Dutton heard Larsen’s claim on June 5, 2012 (Tr. 98-99, 22).
ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on June 22, 2012, denying
The
Larsen’s claim for disability benefits (Tr. 19-32).
Larsen filed
a request for review of the hearing decision by the Appeals
Council on August 12, 2012 (Tr. 7).
On August 21, 2012, the
Appeals Council denied Larsen’s request (Tr. 1-6).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Larsen is a 50-year-old woman who graduated from high
school and has a vocational license in cosmetology in two states
(Tr. 50).
She has been married for fourteen years and has two
stepsons and five grandchildren (Tr. 50).
Larsen worked in the
past as a cosmetologist and census worker (Tr. 51-52).
She
worked as a hair stylist, but had to stop due to a right shoulder
surgery (Tr. 55-56).
(Tr. 55).
After the surgery, she became a manicurist
She last worked in 2006 when she was diagnosed with
fibromyalgia (Tr. 44).
Larsen alleges she has been disabled since September
11, 2006, due to her fibromyalgia, myofascial pain, moderate
spinal stenosis, mild carpal tunnel syndrome, and history of
right shoulder surgery.
Larsen has been treated by various
physicians for multiple physical impairments.
The degree to
which these impairments debilitate Larsen is in debate.
On January 16, 2006, Larson met with Dr. William Palmer
(“Dr. Palmer”) and underwent a rheumatological evaluation (Tr.
251).
Larsen had previously been diagnosed with fibromyalgia
-2-
(Tr. 250).
She reported that she felt better all over except for
her right arm pain (Tr. 251).
She rated her pain as an “8" on a
10-point scale, all coming from the right arm (Tr. 252).
Dr.
Palmer noted that an electromyography (EMG) scan showed minor
carpal tunnel on the right, but much worse on the left (Tr. 251).
Dr. Palmer also noted that Dr. Crabb could offer no explanation
for her right arm discomfort (Tr. 251).
In February 2006, Larsen returned to Dr. Palmer with
complaints of right arm pain (Tr. 250).
Her Phalen’s and Tinel’s
signs were positive, worse on her right (Tr. 250).
Dr. Palmer
also indicated an extremely tender trigger point along her right
trapezius muscle (Tr. 250).
To alleviate the pain, Larsen was
given an injection to the right trapezius tender point (Tr. 250).
In August of 2006, Larsen went to the emergency room
with complaints of back pain (Tr. 327).
severe (Tr. 327).
Larsen rated the pain as
Larsen had a follow up with her primary care
physician, Dr. Kent Johnson (“Dr. Johnson”), later that month
(Tr. 309-10).
Larsen had some tenderness around her right
scapula, worse near the trapezius and the top of the scapula, but
no definite trigger point (Tr. 310).
of fibromyalgia (Tr. 310).
Dr. Johnson noted a history
Larsen told Dr. Johnson that she was
having difficulty doing her job and was considering retirement
(Tr. 310).
-3-
In September of 2006, a magnetic resonance imaging scan
(“MRI”) of the spine was performed on Larsen (Tr. 307).
The MRI
revealed (1) mild multilevel degenerative spondylosis without
significant spinal stenosis change centrally and laterally and no
superimposed disk herniation, and (2) bone marrow edema T3. T4
posterior elements on the right (Tr. 307).
A computed tomography
(“CT”) scan of her thoracic spine was normal (Tr. 306).
In
November, Larsen had another MRI for her chest and right shoulder
(Tr. 299).
The chest MRI was negative for the right trapezius
muscle, but the right shoulder MRI showed chronic supraspinatus
tendonosis and subacromial bursitis (Tr. 299-300).
Larsen met with her primary care physician, Dr.
Johnson, on various occasions between November 2006 to February
2009.
In November of 2006, Larsen told Dr. Johnson that she
continued to have problems with her back and her right arm pain
was worsening (Tr. 303).
At that time, Larsen was taking Lortab
and Flexeril with only partial benefit (Tr. 303).
In June of
2008, Larsen told Dr. Johnson that she had pain in her neck and
shoulders (Tr. 291).
Dr. Johnson found that her neck was tender
upon examination (Tr. 291).
At another visit in October of 2008,
Larsen stated that she had pain in her upper back, she had lots
of stress, and was occasionally depressed (Tr. 285).
Upon
examination, Larsen’s right mid-back was tender, but her
-4-
neuromuscular examination was otherwise normal (Tr. 286).
Dr.
Johnson prescribed Flexeril as needed for her back pain (Tr.
286).
In February of 2009, Larsen had a follow-up MRI and an
EMG scan (Tr. 277-79).
The MRI scan revealed moderate spinal
stenosis at three levels (Tr. 279).
There was little change
compared to the previous MRI (Tr. 279).
An EMG scan suggested
very mild bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (Tr. 277-78).
There
was no evidence of radiculopathy or other neuropathic process
(Tr. 278).
Larsen met with a neurosurgeon, Dr. Keith Lodhia (“Dr.
Lodhia”), for a consultation on March 4, 2009 (Tr. 542-44).
Larsen rated her pain as a constant “10" on a 10-point scale (Tr.
542).
Dr. Lodhia observed that Larsen had good range of motion
of the cervical spine without limitation (Tr. 542).
She did not
have any tenderness with palpation of the spinous process or
parvertebral muscles (Tr. 542).
Dr. Lodhia did not think that
Larsen was a surgical candidate and recommended conservative
treatment of epidural injections and possibly physical therapy
(Tr. 543).
Dr. Lodhia did not see any causation for Larsen’s
right arm pain (Tr. 543).
In addition, Larsen met with Dr.
Douglas Rennels (“Dr. Rennels”) in March of 2009 (Tr. 342-45).
Dr. Rennels administered a cervical epidural steroid injection
-5-
(Tr. 344).
He also recommended physical therapy and medication
(Tr. 344).
Larsen reported at her follow-up that the physical
therapy and steroid injection had helped significantly and that
she felt much better (Tr. 347).
In March of 2010, Larsen met with Dr. Johnson due to
pain in her right arm (Tr. 268).
A second EMG/nerve conduction
study showed little change since the February 2009 study (Tr.
266-67).
Larsen underwent chiropractic treatment in March and
April (Tr. 549-54).
(Tr. 265).
In April, Larsen visited Dr. Johnson again
She stated that she was emotionally wrung out and was
seeing a grief counselor (Tr. 265).
Dr. Johnson assessed
depression, fibromyalgia, and back pain (Tr. 265).
She was not
taking any medications at that time and Dr. Johnson prescribed
Cymbalta and Norflex (Tr. 265).
In September of 2010, Larsen underwent another MRI of
the cervical spine (Tr. 260).
February 2009 MRI (Tr. 261).
September (Tr. 262).
The MRI was stable compared to the
Larsen also met with Dr. Johnson in
She told Dr. Johnson that she was not doing
well, and that she has felt that her right arm is getting
progressively more stiff and sore (Tr. 262).
Dr. Johnson noted
that she was quite frustrated and was wondering if she would
qualify for disability (Tr. 262).
Dr. Johnson informed her that
success at applying for disability was not his determination, but
-6-
she had enough problems to make an application and to see what
happened (Tr. 262).
Larsen met with Dr. Johnson again in November of 2010,
complaining of decreased concentration and right arm and hand
pain (Tr. 370).
Dr. Johnson prescribed Savella (Tr. 371).
In
December, Larsen visited Dr. Johnson for a follow-up (Tr. 366,
425).
She reported that the Savella was helping her fibromyalgia
(Tr. 366, 425).
She was experiencing less pain and had a little
more energy (Tr. 366, 425).
In December of 2010, Larsen met with Dr. James Wax
(“Dr. Wax”) for a physical consultative examination (Tr. 377-84).
Dr. Wax observed that Larsen was able to sit continuously
throughout the examination, did not use an assistive device, and
was able to get up and down from the chair and examining table
without a problem (Tr. 381).
He noticed that she had some
numbness in her right hand and a slight decreased grip strength
(Tr. 382).
Dr. Wax stated that he did not think Larsen is a
candidate to go back to work because of her training as a
cosmetologist as she no longer has the stamina to perform the job
(Tr. 383).
In January 2011, Dr. Steven Higgins (“Dr. Higgins”)
reviewed Larsen’s medical records and completed a physical
residual functional capacity assessment (Tr. 407-15).
-7-
Dr.
Higgins opined that Larsen could lift and carry 20 pounds
occasionally and 10 pounds frequently (Tr. 408).
In addition,
Dr. Higgins found that Larsen could sit, stand, and walk for 6
hours during an 8-hour workday (Tr. 408).
Dr. Higgins
recommended that Larsen avoid frequent repetitive use of hand
controls by her right hand due to history of mild carpal tunnel
syndrome (Tr. 408).
Dr. Brian Hollis (“Dr. Hollis”) performed a second
physical consultative examination in May of 2011 (Tr. 427-36).
Dr. Hollis noted that Larsen’s chief complaints were
fibromyalgia, cervical stenosis, and carpal tunnel syndrome (Tr.
427).
During the examination, Larsen did not have significant
difficulty either performing range of motion or climbing on to
examination table (Tr. 433).
Dr. Hollis noted that Larsen’s most
significant component appeared to be fibromyalgia (Tr. 433).
Larsen was untreated with medication for the fibromyalgia (Tr.
433).
Dr. Hollis recommended exercise and medical intervention
to improve fibromyalgia symptoms (Tr. 433).
Regarding Larsen’s
carpal tunnel, Dr. Hollis stated that if symptoms persist, she
may want to consider carpal tunnel release which may allow her to
perform some of the repetitive movements that she had been unable
to perform (Tr. 434).
-8-
On May 21, 2012, Dr. Johnson submitted a report in
support of Larsen’s disability claim (Tr. 546-47).
Dr. Johnson
opined that Larsen had fibromyalgia, mild spinal stenosis, and
carpal tunnel (Tr. 546).
Dr. Johnson noted that Larsen has good
and bad days, and she is significantly limited by her
fibromyalgia and arm pain (Tr. 546).
Larsen is only able to sit
for 15-20 minutes at one time before she needs to change
positions (Tr. 546).
Dr. Johnson stated that Larsen would be
unable to perform a job where she would have to sit for six hours
out of an eight hour day (Tr. 546).
Dr. Johnson opined that
Larsen has been unable to work eight hours a day, five days a
week on a regular and continuing basis since September 1, 2006
(Tr. 547).
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
On June 5, 2012, Larsen testified at a administrative
hearing, along with Stephen Schill, a vocational expert.
Larsen
testified that she could not work because of her fibromyalgia
that caused her widespread pain, pain in her right hand and arm,
and difficulty concentrating. (Tr. at 55-68).
Larsen described
her self-treatment as keeping a positive environment, eating
well, and taking her medications (Tr. 58).
She would try to stay
in motion by taking her dog for very short walks and using an
exercise ball (Tr. 58).
In addition, Larsen gardens two to three
-9-
times per week (Tr. 64).
Larsen was taking Savella for her
fibromyalgia, Melatonin to help her sleep, omega three fatty
acids and vitamin D for low deficiency, and hydrocodone for pain
(Tr. 59).
She testified that she had widespread pain, dominant
on her right side (Tr. 61).
On a good day, her pain level is a
“6" out of 10, and “8" out of 10 on a bad day (Tr. 62).
Larsen
testified that she averages two or three good days per week (Tr.
62).
She can comfortably sit still for 15 to 20 minutes at a
time (Tr. 63).
Larsen trained herself to use her left hand for
various tasks (Tr. 65).
On average, Larsen has to be laying down
during the day for four to six hours (Tr. 66).
Stephen Shill testified in response to a hypothetical
question posed by the ALJ.
The ALJ posed the following question,
assume an individual who could
occasionally lift or carry 20
pounds, frequently lift or carry 10
pounds; could stand, sit or walk
for at least six hours in an eighthour day; could occasionally do all
postural activities, climb,
balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and
crawl; for hands, can use the hands
for frequent but not constant
reaching, handling, and fingering.
There is no restriction in feeling,
and should avoid concentrated
exposure to vibration and hazards
such as dangerous equipment or
machinery. With that functional
capacity, could the person return
to past work?
-10-
(Tr. 70-71).
The vocational expert answered the question by stating
that an individual could return to past work as a cosmetologist
or a census worker (Tr. 71).
The vocational expert testified
that there are 2,300 cosmetologist positions in the region and
157,000 in the national economy (Tr. 71).
The vocational expert
was unable to give any data on the number of census jobs because
it is seasonal work (Tr. 71-72).
However, the vocational expert
listed office helper, photocopy machine operator, and mail clerk
as other appropriate light exertional work (Tr. 72).
The
vocational expert provided data for available positions in the
regional and national economy for the positions of office helper,
photocopy machine operator, and mail clerk.
Larsen’s attorney, Mr. Cuddigan, posed the vocational
expert with additional hypothetical questions.
Mr. Cuddigan
asked the vocational expert to assume,
she is only able to sit for 15 to
20 minutes at one time before she
needs to change positions; and in
fact she often has difficulty
sitting for that long, and often
has to lie down. She would be
unable to perform a job where she
would have to sit for six hours out
of an eight-hour day. She
frequently has to recline or lie
down and rest because of pain and
difficulty. She is unable to lift
greater than 10 pounds. She has
-11-
some problems with concentration
and memory, primarily because of
her pain. She would miss at least
three days of work a month. If
someone had all of those
limitations, would any competitive
work exist in the national economy
that they could perform?
(Tr. 73-74).
The vocational expert stated that there would not be
competitive work based on the hypothetical question because of
missing work three days per month and frequent lying down (Tr.
74).
In addition, the vocational expert stated that Larson’s
testimony about the limited use of dominant hand and pain levels
would preclude competitive employment (Tr. 74).
Mr. Cuddigan
asked the vocational expert to modify the ALJ’s hypothetical by
changing the handling and fingering requirement to occasional
(Tr. 74).
The vocational expert stated that with the change to
the hypothetical, that she would not be able to perform past work
or the positions of office helper, photocopy machine operator,
and mail clerk (Tr. 74-75).
THE ALJ’S FINDINGS
The ALJ found that Larsen was not under a disability
within the meaning of the Social Security Act from September 11,
2006, through the date last insured (Tr. 22).
The ALJ concluded
that Larsen had the following severe impairments: fibromyalgia/
-12-
myofascial pain, moderate spinal stenosis, history of very mild
carpal tunnel syndrome, and a history of right shoulder surgery
in 2003 (Tr. 24).
However, Larsen did not have an impairment or
combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the
severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404,
Subpart P, Appendix 1 (Tr. 24).
After review of the entire
record, the ALJ found that Larsen had the residual functional
capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(h)
except that Larsen needs to avoid concentrated exposure to
vibrations and hazards (Tr. 24-25).
In addition, the claimant
can use her hands frequently but not constantly for handling and
fingering, with no restrictions in feeling (Tr. 25).
After
careful consideration of the evidence, the ALJ concluded that
Larsen was not fully credible to the extent of permanent
disability (Tr. 30).
Larsen visited many specialists, but no
specialist provided work restrictions or endorsed disability (Tr.
30).
The ALJ did not give significant weight to the opinion of
Dr. Johnson because his opinion was not supported by his progress
notes or other medical evidence of record (Tr. 30).
The ALJ
determined that Larsen could perform the full range of light work
(Tr. 32).
Consequently, the ALJ concluded that Larsen was not
disabled at any time from September 11, 2006, through December
31, 2011 (Tr. 32).
-13-
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When reviewing an ALJ’s decision, the Court “must
determine ‘whether the ALJ’s decision complies with the relevant
legal requirements and is supported by substantial evidence in
the record as a whole.’”
Martise v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 909, 920
(8th Cir. 2011) (quoting Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 922, 929
(8th Cir. 2010)).
“Substantial evidence” is:
relevant evidence that a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion. Substantial
evidence on the record as a whole,
however, requires a more
scrutinizing analysis. In the
review of an administrative
decision, the substantiality of
evidence must take into account
whatever in the record fairly
detracts from its weight. Thus,
the court must also take into
consideration the weight of the
evidence in the record and apply a
balancing test to evidence which is
contradictory.
Id. at 920-21.
“‘If, after reviewing the record, the court finds it is
possible to draw two inconsistent positions from the evidence and
one of those positions represents the ALJ’s findings, the court
must affirm the ALJ’s decision.’”
Partee v. Astrue, 638 F.3d
860, 863 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785,
789 (8th Cir. 2005)).
The Court may not reverse the ALJ’s
-14-
decision “merely because [the Court] would have come to a
different conclusion.”
Teague v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 611, 614 (8th
Cir. 2011)(citation omitted).
proving disability.”
The claimant “bears the burden of
Id. at 615.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Larsen argues that the ALJ’s decision was not supported
by substantial evidence in the following ways:
(1) not assigning
proper weight to the opinion of Dr. Johnson; (2) failing to weigh
the opinions of the state agency doctors and consultative
examiners; (3) the ALJ’s hypothetical question did not accurately
reflect Larsen’s limitations; (4) the ALJ improperly determined
Larsen’s residual functional capacity; and (5) the ALJ’s
insufficient assessment of Larsen’s credibility.
1. The Weight given to the Medical Opinions of Larsen’s
Treating Physician, Dr. Johnson.
A treating physician’s opinion is typically entitled to
deference, however, “an ALJ need not defer to such an opinion
when it is inconsistent with the substantial evidence in the
record.”
2004).
Strongson v. Barnhart, 361 F.3d 1066, 1070 (8th Cir.
An ALJ is warranted in discrediting some of the treating
physician’s opinions in light of other contradictory evidence in
the record.
See Weber v. Apfel, 164 F.3d 431 (8th Cir. 1999).
In this case, the ALJ did not give significant weight to Dr.
-15-
Johnson’s opinion because it was not supported by his progress
notes and other medical evidence of record (Tr. 30).
In May of 2012, Dr. Johnson opined that Larsen had mild
spinal stenosis and carpal tunnel syndrome, but she was primarily
limited by her fibromyalgia (Tr. 546-47).
Dr. Johnson also
stated that in his opinion Larsen has been unable to work eight
hours a day, five days a week on a regular and continuing basis
since September 1, 2006 (Tr. 547).
However, the ALJ noted that
multiple objective tests resulted in minimal to moderate
findings.
Larsen visited Dr. Lodhia, a neurosurgeon, in 2009 and
he only found mild spondylitic changes but no significant central
or foraminal stenosis (Tr. 543).
He could not find anything in
the cervical spine that caused her symptoms.
In September of
2010, Larsen’s MRI of her cervical spine was stable as compared
to her February 2009 scan (Tr. 320-21).
The EMG scans in 2006,
2009, and 2010 demonstrated only very mild carpal tunnel disease
(Tr. 30 , 251, 266-67, 277-78, 348, 350-51).
In addition, the
ALJ took into account the lack of restriction placed on Larsen by
other physicians, and the lack of
pain medication.
In January
of 2011, Dr. Higgins noted that Larsen remained “capable of work
as outlined in this RFC” (Tr. 414).
In addition, Dr. Hollis
recommended “continued exercise and medical intervention“ to help
improve Larsen’s symptoms (Tr. 433).
-16-
Dr. Hollis also noted that
Larsen was only taking Bayer aspirin, vitamin D, and omega 3
fatty acids in May of 2011 (Tr. 429).
Therefore, the record
supports the ALJ’s decision to not give Dr. Johnson’s opinion
significant weight due to the lack of medical evidence of record.
2. The Weight given to the Medical Opinions of the State
Agency Doctors and Consultive Examiners.
Larsen argues that the ALJ failed to assign any weight
to the opinions of the non-examining state agency doctors or the
medical records of the consultative examiners.
“Although
required to develop the record fully and fairly, an ALJ is not
required to discuss every piece of evidence submitted.”
Black v.
Apfel, 143 F.3d 383, 386 (8th Cir. 1998)(citation omitted).
In
addition, “an ALJ’s failure to cite specific evidence does not
indicate that such evidence was not considered.
discussed and reviewed all the medical evidence.
Id.
The ALJ
The ALJ noted
that DDS doctors did not have the advantage of all the diagnostic
testing over three years (Tr. 30).
Given the ALJ’s discussion of
Larsen’s medical records and citations, it is highly unlikely
that the ALJ did not consider the opinions of the non-examining
state agency doctors or the medical records of the consultive
examiners.
-17-
3. The ALJ’s Hypothetical Question.
“Testimony from a vocational expert constitutes
substantial evidence only when based on a properly phrased
hypothetical question.”
(8th Cir. 2004).
Tucker v. Barnhart, 363 F.3d 781, 784
The hypothetical question must include all the
claimant's impairments supported by substantial evidence in the
record as a whole.
Id.
However, the hypothetical question need
only include those impairments which the ALJ accepts as true.
Rappoport v. Sullivan, 942 F.2d 1320, 1323 (8th Cir. 1991).
In this case, the ALJ posed a hypothetical question to
the vocational expert based on limitations that the ALJ found to
be supported by the record (Tr. 31-32, 70-71).
The vocational
expert testified that a person could perform Larsen’s past
profession, in addition to other unskilled light work
occupations.
Larsen argues that the hypothetical was erroneous
because it did not include all of her impairments because the ALJ
failed to properly assess Dr. Johnson’s opinion.
This Court
previously concluded that the ALJ’s determination to not give Dr.
Johnson’s opinions significant weight is supported by substantial
evidence on the record as a whole.
The ALJ presented the
vocational expert with a fair hypothetical that accurately set
forth Larsen’s limitations.
-18-
4. The ALJ’s Determination of Larsen’s Residual Functional
Capacity.
Larsen argues that the ALJ’s determination of her
residual functional capacity is not supported by substantial
evidence.
Larsen claims that because the ALJ improperly
evaluated the medical evidence, the ALJ arrived at an incorrect
residual functional capacity.
This Court has already concluded
that the record supports the ALJ’s decision to not give Dr.
Johnson’s opinion significant weight.
In addition, the Court
found that the ALJ asked the vocational expert a proper
hypothetical.
After considering the evidence of record, the ALJ
determined that Larsen had the residual functional capacity to
perform light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b), except
that she needed to avoid concentrated exposure to vibrations and
hazards.
The ALJ’s determination of Larsen’s residual functional
capacity is supported by substantial evidence.
5. Evaluation of Larsen’s Credibility.
An ALJ’s credibility findings must be supported by
substantial evidence.
(8th Cir. 1992).
Robinson v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 836, 839
“In analyzing a claimant’s subjective
complaints of pain, an ALJ must examine:
‘(1) the claimant’s
daily activities; (2) the duration, frequency, and intensity of
the pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) dosage,
-19-
effectiveness, and side effects of medication; [and] (5)
functional restrictions.’”
Dunahoo v. Apfel, 241 F.3d 1033, 1038
(8th Cir. 2001) (quoting Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322
(8th Cir. 1984)).
An ALJ is required to make an “express
credibility determination” when discrediting a social security
claimant's subjective complaints.
971–72 (8th Cir. 2000).
Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969,
If the ALJ gives a “good” reason for not
crediting the claimant that is supported by the record, the Court
will defer to the ALJ’s judgment.
Robinson, 956 F.2d at 841.
In this case, the ALJ found that Larsen’s subjective
complaints were not fully credible due to inconsistencies with
objective medical evidence, lack of support for Larsen’s selfimposed restrictions, and her minimal and conservative treatment.
The ALJ noted that Larsen’s subjective complaints were out of
proportion to objective tests and repeated scans of Larsen’s
neck, mid back, lower back, nerves and hands which had mild
findings.
The ALJ also found no support for Larsen’s self
imposed restriction, for example training herself to use her left
hand, in light of objective evidence.
In addition, no specialist
provided work restrictions or endorsed disability.
The Court
finds that the ALJ complied with the requirements to disregard
Larsen’s subjective complaints and that the record as a whole
provides substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s determination.
-20-
CONCLUSION
Substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports
the ALJ’s findings.
The Commissioner’s denial of plaintiff’s
benefits claim will be affirmed.
A separate order will be
entered in accordance with this memorandum opinion.
DATED this 2nd day of December, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court
-21-
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?