Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_15-cv-00399/USCOURTS-ared-4_15-cv-00399-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

Sharee Mae Gorman Plaintiff

v. No. 4:15‐CV–399‐KBG‐JTK

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner,

Social Security Administration Defendant

Recommended Disposition

Instructions

The following recommended disposition was prepared for U.S. District Judge

Kristine G. Baker.  A party to this dispute may file written objections to this

recommendation.  An objection must be specific and state the factual and/or legal basis

for the objection.  An objection to a factual finding must identify the finding and the

evidence supporting the objection.  Objections must be filed with the clerk of the court

no later than 14 days from the date of this recommendation.1  The objecting party must

serve the opposing party with a copy of an objection.  Failing to object within 14 days

waives the right to appeal questions of fact.2

  If no objections are filed, Judge Baker may

adopt the recommended disposition without independently reviewing all of the record

evidence.

1

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

2

Griffini v. Mitchell, 31 F.3d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1994) (failure to file objections

waives right to de novo review and to appeal magistrate judge’s findings of fact).

Case 4:15-cv-00399-KGB Document 15 Filed 02/04/16 Page 1 of 9
Reasoning for Recommended Disposition

Sharee Mae Gorman seeks judicial review of the denial of her second application

for disability insurance benefits (DIB).3  In her first application, Gorman alleged

disability beginning January 2010,4 but in June 2011 she began full‐time work at a

grocery store.  When she filed the second application, she worked part‐time at the same

store.5

  Gorman based disability on rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, osteopenia,

depression, fatigue, migraines, obstructive sleep apnea, and vitamin B‐12/D deficiency.6

The Commissioner’s decision.  This case considers nine months: from July 28,

2013 — Gorman’s alleged onset date — to March 31, 2014 — the date insured status

expired.  The latter date is important because a person must be insured to obtain DIB.

Even if Gorman develops disabling symptoms after March 31, 2014, she does not

qualify for DIB because she is no longer insured.  

The ALJ’s decision states an erroneous alleged onset date — March 31, 20137 —

3

SSA record at p. 151 (applying on Aug. 22, 2013 and alleging disability

beginning July 28, 2013).

4

See id. at pp. 155, 169 & 197 (indicating she applied on Dec. 28, 2010 and alleged

disability beginning January 1, 2010; application denied on Apr. 22, 2011).

5

Id. at pp. 47, 187, 220 & 230.

6

Id. at p. 200.

7

Id. at p. 24.

2

Case 4:15-cv-00399-KGB Document 15 Filed 02/04/16 Page 2 of 9
but the ALJ clarified the actual alleged onset date during the hearing.8

  The stated date

constitutes a scrivener’s error that has no bearing on the result.

The ALJ identified osteoarthritis and fibromyalgia as severe impairments.9

  The

ALJ determined Gorman could do sedentary work before insured status expired, to

include past work as a service clerk.10  Because a person who can do her past work is

not disabled under social security law, the ALJ denied the application.11

After the Appeals Council denied review,12 the ALJ’s decision became the

Commissioner’s final decision for the purpose of judicial review.13  Gorman filed this

case to challenge the decision.14  The recommended disposition explains why the court

should affirm the decision.

Gorman’s allegations.  Gorman complains about the ALJ’s consideration of

8

Id. at p. 49.

9

Id. at p. 26.

10Id. at pp. 28 & 36.

11Id. at p. 36.

12Id. at p. 1.

13See Anderson v. Sullivan, 959 F.2d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1992) (stating that “the Social

Security Act precludes general federal subject matter jurisdiction until administrative

remedies have been exhausted” and explaining that the Commissioner’s appeal

procedure permits claimants to appeal only final decisions).

14Docket entry # 1.

3

Case 4:15-cv-00399-KGB Document 15 Filed 02/04/16 Page 3 of 9
treating‐physician medical statements.  She contends the ALJ failed to consider

evidence detracting from the decision.  She challenges the evaluation of her credibility.

She maintains numerous symptoms prevent her from working.  She says substantial

evidence does not support the decision.15

Applicable legal principles.  When reviewing a decision denying an application

for DIB, the court must determine whether substantial evidence supports the decision

and whether the ALJ made a legal error.16  For substantial evidence to exist, a

reasonable mind must accept the evidence as adequate to support the determination

that Gorman can do sedentary work and that Gorman can do her past work.17  For the

following reasons, a reasonable mind will accept the evidence as adequate to support

the decision:

1.  The record establishes no very serious functional limitation

preventing sedentary work.  Sedentary work “involves lifting no more

than 10 pounds at a time and occasionally lifting or carrying articles like

15Docket entry # 12.

16See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (requiring the district court to determine whether the

Commissioner’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the

Commissioner conformed with applicable regulations); Long v. Chater, 108 F.3d 185, 187

(8th Cir. 1997) (“We will uphold the Commissioner’s decision to deny an applicant

disability benefits if the decision is not based on legal error and if there is substantial

evidence in the record as a whole to support the conclusion that the claimant was not

disabled.”).

17Britton v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 328, 330 (8th Cir. 1990) (substantial evidence exists if

a reasonable mind will accept evidence as adequate to support conclusion).

4

Case 4:15-cv-00399-KGB Document 15 Filed 02/04/16 Page 4 of 9
docket files, ledgers, and small tools.”18  Sedentary work “represents a

significantly restricted range of work.  Individuals who are limited to no

more than sedentary work by their medical impairments have very

serious functional limitations.”19

Gorman based her claim, in significant part, on hand and foot pain

flowing from rheumatoid arthritis, but Gorman has osteoarthritis, not

rheumatoid arthritis.20  She’s been treated for osteoarthritis since 2007.

Gorman worked full‐time despite osteoarthritis.  According to a

rheumatologist, symptoms suggest fibromyalgia,21 but the rheumatologist

never diagnosed fibromyalgia.

Prescribed medication controls Gorman’s symptoms fairly well,22 but

untreated sleep apnea aggravates her symptoms.23  Treatment notes

indicate using prescribed continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)

1820 C.F.R. § 404.1567(a).

19SSR 96‐9p, Pol’y Interpretation Ruling Titles II & XVI: Determining Capability to Do

Other Work‐‐Implications of a Residual Functional Capacity for Less Than a Full Range of

Sedentary Work.

20SSA record at p. 456 (May 2, 2013: she has osteoarthritis but also stigmata

suggesting fibromyalgia), p. 451 (July 17, 2013: rheumatoid factor slightly positive, but

might be a false positive; more likely she has osteoarthritis than rheumatoid arthritis),

p. 533 (Dec. 12, 2013: labs showed slightly positive rheumatoid factor and normal

sedimentation rate; she more likely has osteoarthritis than rheumatoid arthritis) &

p. 621 (June 2, 2014: osteoarthritis reasonably well controlled with medication).

21Id. at p. 456.

22Id. at p. 621.

23Id. at p. 457 (Oct. 1, 2012: increasingly tired after stopping CPAP; hands and feet

hurt most), p. 456 (May 2, 2013: she isn’t using her CPAP and isn’t feeling well), p. 453

(July 17, 2013: discussed consequences of untreated sleep apnea, including pain and

fatigue; she needs to see sleep specialist because she’s not using her CPAP) & p. 621

(June 2, 2014: not using CPAP likely makes her pain worse).

5

Case 4:15-cv-00399-KGB Document 15 Filed 02/04/16 Page 5 of 9
will decrease fatigue and pain, but Gorman doesn’t use her CPAP.24

According to agency medical experts, Gorman could do light work before

insured status expired.25  A reasonable mind will accept the evidence as

adequate to support the decision because the ALJ limited Gorman to

sedentary work and because a person who can do light work can do

sedentary work.26

2.  The ALJ properly considered treating‐physician medical statements.

The ALJ must consider all credible evidence, to include medical opinion

evidence, when considering whether a claimant is disabled.27  The

Commissioner’s rules instruct the ALJ to give a treating physician’s

medical opinion controlling weight if it “is well‐ supported and not

inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.”28

The record includes four medical opinions: two from agency medical

experts and two from treating physicians.  The agency medical experts

opined that Gorman could do light work.29  The treating physicians

reported disabling symptoms.30  The ALJ rejected the treating‐physician

statements because reported limitations contradict demonstrated

functional activity and because the statements reflect subjective

24Id. at p. 533.

25Id. at pp. 71‐72 & 87‐88.

2620 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b) (“If someone can do light work, we determine that he or

she can also do sedentary work, unless there are additional limiting factors such as loss

of fine dexterity or inability to sit for long periods of time.”).

2720 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

28SSR 96‐2p, Pol’y Interpretation Ruling Titles II & XVI, Giving Controlling Weight to

Treating Source Med. Opinions.

29SSA record at pp. 71‐72 & 87‐88.

30Id. at pp. 667 & 674.

6

Case 4:15-cv-00399-KGB Document 15 Filed 02/04/16 Page 6 of 9
complaints.31  If supported by the record, these reasons are good reasons

for rejecting the statements.  

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s reasons.  Treating physicians

reported that Gorman could use her hands/fingers for 5% of an 8‐hour

workday;32 5% equates to 24 minutes.  At the time of the statement,

Gorman used her hands/fingers for more than 24 minutes per day.  She

worked at a grocery store delicatessen for 4 hours a day, 5 days a week.33

Working at a deli necessarily requires a worker to use the hands and

fingers.  

Treating physicians reported that Gorman could stand/walk for no more

than 2 hours a day.34  According to Gorman, working full‐time required 6

hours of walking and 2 hours of standing.  The reduction to 4 hours a day

would require 3 hours of walking and 1 hour of standing, for a total of 4

hours a day.  Four hours a day exceeds the reported limitation.

Gorman contends the ALJ should have explained why the medical

statements reflect subjective allegations, but in the absence of medical

findings documenting functional limitation, the only basis for the reported

limitations was subjective allegations.  The ALJ had a sufficient basis for

rejecting the reported limitations.

3.  The ALJ properly discounted Gorman’s credibility.  The ALJ followed

the required two‐step process and considered the required factors35 to

evaluate Gorman’s credibility.  The question before the court is whether

substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s credibility evaluation.

31Id. at p. 35.

32Id. at pp. 671‐72 & 678‐79.

33Id. at pp. 201 & 209.

34Id. at pp. 670 & 677.

35See SSR 96‐7p, Policy Interpretation Ruling Titles II & XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms

in Disability Claims: Assessing the Credibility of an Individual’s Statements.

7

Case 4:15-cv-00399-KGB Document 15 Filed 02/04/16 Page 7 of 9
The ALJ gave little probative weight to Gorman’s testimony because her

“ability to work, prepare meals, shop, drive and tend to her personal

needs, clean her house and do laundry in conjunction with the medical

evidence demonstrating minimal abnormalities, reflects a significant

functional capacity and not an individual unable to sustain regular and

continuing work due to medically determinable impairments.”36  The cited

activities are supported by the record, contradict disabling symptoms, and

provide a sufficient basis for discounting Gorman’s credibility.

Gorman complains because the ALJ didn’t include all alleged symptoms

in determining her ability to work, but her argument fails because the ALJ

properly discounted her credibility.  She claims the ALJ failed to consider

evidence detracting from the decision, but subjective statements are the

only evidence detracting from the decision.  Gorman undermined her

credibility by working part‐time, driving, cooking, doing laundry,

cleaning her home, and disregarding medical advice about using her

CPAP.  Medical evidence documents no serious functional limitation

preventing sedentary work.

4.  Vocational evidence indicates Gorman can do her past work.  A

person who can do her past work is not disabled under social security

law.37  Gorman worked as a service clerk for a telephone company for over

20 years.38  She lost her job when the company restructured.39  According

to the vocational  expert, a service clerk is a sedentary job.40  A person who

can do sedentary work has the capacity to work as a service clerk.

36SSA record at p. 35.

3720 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4) (“If you can still do your past relevant work, we will

find that you are not disabled.”).

38SSA record at pp. 201 & 220.

39Id. at pp. 59‐60.

40Id. at p. 61.

8

Case 4:15-cv-00399-KGB Document 15 Filed 02/04/16 Page 8 of 9
Conclusion and Recommended Disposition

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision because a reasonable mind will

accept the evidence as adequate to support the decision.  Gorman’s impairments did not

prevent sedentary work before insured status expired.  The ALJ made no reversible

legal error.  For these reasons, the undersigned magistrate judge recommends

DENYING Gorman’s request for relief (docket entry # 2) and AFFIRMING the

Commissioner’s decision.

Dated this 4th day of February, 2016.

____________________________

United States Magistrate Judge

9

Case 4:15-cv-00399-KGB Document 15 Filed 02/04/16 Page 9 of 9