Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-4_05-cv-04006/USCOURTS-arwd-4_05-cv-04006-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

ALAN L. BUFFALO PLAINTIFF

vs. Civil No. 05-4006

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Factual and Procedural Background:

Alan L. Buffalo (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), has appealed the final decision of the

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (hereinafter "Commissioner"), denying his

claims for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits (hereinafter "DIB"), pursuant

to §§ 216(i) and 223 of Title II of the Social Security Act (hereinafter "the Act"), 42 U.S.C. §§

416(i) and 423, and for supplemental security income (hereinafter "SSI") benefits, pursuant to §

1602 of Title XVI, 42 U.S.C. § 1381a. In this judicial review, the Court must determine

whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the Commissioner’s

decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Both parties have filed appeal briefs (Doc. #5, 6 & 7). The history of the administrative

proceedings is contained in the respective appeal briefs and will not be recounted herein, except

as is necessary.

Plaintiff alleges that he is disabled due to: degenerative disc disease; residuals of an

injury to the lumbar spine during military service; narrowing of the lumbar disc spaces with

spondylosis; mild, diffuse bulging disk at L3-4 and L4-5 with facet arthropathy at L4-5 and

extra accumulation of synovial fluid in the left facet joint; arthritis; anxiety; panic attacks; major

Case 4:05-cv-04006-BES Document 8 Filed 03/28/06 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

depression; recurrent depression; adjustment disorder; anger control issues; GAF of 65;

insomnia; multiple suicide attempts; insomnia; fatigue; headaches; multiple inpatient

psychiatric hospitalizations; pain; numerous functional limitations; and, side effects of

medications. The issue before this Court is whether the decision of the Commissioner is

supported by substantial record evidence. 

The Plaintiff’s administrative hearing was conducted on July 9, 2004 (T. 213-255), after

which the ALJ issued his written decision, dated October 29, 2004 (T. 11-16).

 Plaintiff then sought review of the ALJ’s decision by the Appeals Council (T. 6-7). 

Plaintiff’s request for review to the Appeals Council was denied on January 21, 2005 (T. 3-5). 

When the Appeals Council declined review, the ALJ’s decision became the final action of the

Commissioner. From that decision, Plaintiff appeals (Doc. #1, 5 & 7). This matter is before the

undersigned by consent of the parties (Doc. #2).

Applicable Law:

Our role on review is to determine whether the Commissioner's findings are supported

by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010, 1012 (8th

Cir. 2000); see also Craig v. Apfel 212 F.3d 433, 435-436 (8th Cir. 2000). Substantial

evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support the

Commissioner's conclusion. See Haggard v. Apfel, 175 F.3d 591, 594 (8th Cir. 1999). In

considering whether existing evidence is substantial, we consider evidence that detracts from

the Commissioner's decision as well as evidence that supports it. See Prosch, 201 F.3d at 1012.

We may not reverse the Commissioner's decision merely because substantial evidence exists in

the record that would have supported a contrary outcome. See id.; Woolf v. Shalala, 3 F.3d

Case 4:05-cv-04006-BES Document 8 Filed 03/28/06 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

1210, 1213 (8th Cir. 1993). Even if this Court might have weighed the evidence differently, the

decision of the ALJ may not be reversed if there is enough evidence in the record to support the

decision. Browning v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 817, 822 (8th Cir. 1992). 

The Commissioner has established, by regulation, a five-step sequential evaluation for

determining whether an individual is disabled.

The first step involves a determination of whether the claimant is involved in substantial

gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(b). If the claimant is so involved, benefits are denied; if

not, the evaluation goes to the next step.

Step two involves a determination, based solely on the medical evidence, of whether

claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments. Id., § 416.920(c); see 20

C.F.R. § 416.926. If not, benefits are denied; if so, the evaluation proceeds to the next step.

The third step involves a determination, again based solely on the medical evidence, of

whether the severe impairment(s) meets or equals a listed impairment which is presumed to be

disabling. Id., § 416.920(d). If so, benefits are awarded; if not, the evaluation continues.

Step four involves a determination of whether the claimant has sufficient residual

functional capacity, despite the impairment(s), to perform past work. Id., § 416.920(e). If so,

benefits are denied; if not, the evaluation continues.

The fifth step involves a determination of whether the claimant is able to perform other

substantial and gainful work within the economy, given the claimant’s age, education and work

experience. Id., § 404.920(f). If so, benefits are denied; if not, benefits are awarded.

In addition, whenever adult claimants allege mental impairment, the application of a

special technique must be followed at each level of the administrative review process. See 20

Case 4:05-cv-04006-BES Document 8 Filed 03/28/06 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

1Plaintiff’s past relevant work includes that of a: security guard; bounce; supervisor of a

janitorial service; lawn care worker; and, groundskeeper (T. 15)

-4-

C.F.R. § 416.920a(a).

The Commissioner is then charged with rating the degree of functional limitation, and

applying the technique to evaluate mental impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920a(d). 

Application of the technique must be documented by the Commissioner at the ALJ hearing and

Appeals Council levels. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920a(e). 

Discussion:

The ALJ determined that Plaintiff suffered from the following severe impairments: 

"treatment for major depression, anxiety, alcohol dependence and chronic back pain" (T. 11). 

However, the ALJ determined that none of Plaintiff’s severe impairments, alone or in

combination, met or equaled the level of severity of any listed impairment. At step four, the

record reflects that the ALJ determined that Plaintiff is capable of performing a "wide range of

medium work activity not requiring more than routine interpersonal contact with others or work

that is stressful in nature". In performing the PRT analysis with respect to Plaintiff’s mental

diagnoses, the ALJ determined that the Plaintiff experienced no more than moderate restriction

of his daily activities, with no significant deficit in his ability to function socially. Additionally,

the ALJ determined that Plaintiff suffered no significant level of deficiencies of concentration,

persistence or pace. He also determined that Plaintiff experienced no episodes of

decompensation or deterioration in work settings (T. 13). After establishing Plaintiff’s residual

functional capacity, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff could perform his past relevant work1. 

Thus, the sequential analysis ended at step four.

Case 4:05-cv-04006-BES Document 8 Filed 03/28/06 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

2The treatment which was not considered by the ALJ consists of treatment and tests for

Plaintiff’s lumbar back issues, upon which he states his pain is based. Therefore, the record

does not support the finding that treatment for Plaintiff’s allegations of chronic pain ceased in

February of 2003. 

-5-

The ALJ’s decision to find Plaintiff’s nonexertional complaints of pain and functional

limitations less that fully credible is based in significant part on the ALJ’s determination that

Plaintiff failed receive little medical treatment for chronic pain after February 2003 (T. 14). 

However, the ALJ’s characterization of Plaintiff’s treatment2 after February of 2003 is not

supported in the administrative record. There are numerous treatment records and prescription

medication refills which occur after February of 2003. The record reflects treatment of Plaintiff

by the VA through a date just prior to the administrative hearing, which was conducted on July

9, 2004 (T. 213). The record reflects refills of Plaintiff’s medications by the VA through June

28, 2004, just 11 says prior to the date of the administrative hearing (T. 196, 213). The

evidence also includes various laboratory tests ranging from April 12, 2003, to June 28, 2004,

which tests were utilized by the VA and analyzed in comparison with one another (T. 197-200). 

Plaintiff’s blood and urine were tested on April 1, 2004 at the VA hospital in Shreveport,

Louisiana (T. 192). On July 12, 2004, Plaintiffs anti-depressant medication was changed to

Celexa, and his prescription/use of Citalopram Hydrobromide was discontinued (T. 189). A

year long prescription for Soma was prescribed for Plaintiff on January 23, 2003 (T. 188). On

January 24, 2004, Plaintiff’s prescription for Soma was again refilled (T. 188). On August 22,

2004, Plaintiff’s prescriptions for Buspirone, Citalopram Hydrobromide and Seroquel were all

refilled. Plaintiff’s Seroquel was refilled on April 2, 2004 (T. 186). On April 2, 2004,

Plaintiff’s Soma was refilled with directions to take "one tablet by mouth three times a day as

Case 4:05-cv-04006-BES Document 8 Filed 03/28/06 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-6-

needed as a muscle relaxant" (T 185-186). Salsalate was prescribed on April 2, 2004, with

directions to take "one and one-half tablets by mouth twice a day as needed for pain and

inflammation" (T. 185). Plaintiff was also treated at the VA on: June 3, 2003; July 9 & 10,

2003; August 8, 2003; September 22, 2003; September 29, 2003; October 7, 2003; December

19, 2003; February 9, 2004; and, May 19, 2004 (T. 157-183). 

At hearing, both counsel for Plaintiff and the Plaintiff informed the ALJ that a recently

scheduled MRI had been cancelled and would be rescheduled shortly (T. 218-219, 233-234). 

Plaintiff testified that the MRI was scheduled in furtherance of the VA’s treatment of his lumbar

spine (T. 233-234). 

In light of the ALJ’s failure to consider the rather extensive medical treatment Plaintiff

received after February of 2003, the undersigned is not persuaded there is substantial evidence

to support the ALJ’s determination. The ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff lacks credibility in

based in large part on the ALJ’s assertion that Plaintiff failed to seek medical treatment after

February 3, 2003. A thorough review of the medical evidence of record reveals that this finding

is not supported by the evidence. The record contains substantial evidence of Plaintiff’s

consistent medical treatment, well after the date of February 3, 2003. 

Although a deficiency in opinion-writing is not a sufficient reason to set aside an ALJ's

finding where the deficiency had no practical effect on the outcome of the case, the ALJ is not

free to ignore medical evidence of record but rather must consider the whole record. Reeder v.

Apfel, 214 F.3d 984, 988 (8th Cir. 2000), citing Senne v. Apfel, 198 F.3d 1065, 1067 (8th

Cir.1999). Upon remand, the ALJ should consider the medical evidence of record in rendering

a decision.

Case 4:05-cv-04006-BES Document 8 Filed 03/28/06 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-7-

Conclusion:

For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the ALJ should be reversed. This matter

should be remanded to the Commissioner for further consideration and proceedings consistent

with this decision. In light of the Court’s decision to remand, all other issues raised by Plaintiff

are rendered moot. 

ENTERED this 28th day of March, 2006.

/s/Bobby E. Shepherd 

Honorable Bobby E. Shepherd 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 4:05-cv-04006-BES Document 8 Filed 03/28/06 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>