Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_15-cv-00040/USCOURTS-ared-4_15-cv-00040-0/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

WESTERN DIVISION

Kathleen Lorraine Wing Plaintiff

v. No. 4:15CV00040 JLH-JTR

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner,

Social Security Administration Defendant

Recommended Disposition

Instructions

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

J. Leon Holmes. 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 Holmes 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-00040-JLH Document 11 Filed 07/18/16 Page 1 of 13
Reasoning for Recommended Disposition

Kathleen Lorraine Wing (“Wing”) seeks judicial review of the denial of her

application for social security disability benefits.3

 In the past, Wing worked as a

licensed practical nurse in nursing homes.4

 She stopped working in November 2011. 

She claims she has been disabled since that time. She based disability on a herniated

disk, diabetes type II, anxiety, depression, essential and other forms of tremor,

migraines, acute suppurative otitis media without spontaneous rupture, acute

pharyngitis, abdominal pain, nausea, abnormal blood chemistry, and allergies.5

The Commissioner’s decision. After considering the application, the ALJ

identified severe impairments — a herniated disc, diabetes, anxiety, depression, carpal

tunnel syndrome, and obesity6

 — but determined Wing can do some light work,7 to

include her past work as a receptionist.8

 The ALJ also identified other available work

3

SSA record at pp. 197 & 204 (applying onset on Feb. 1, 2012 and alleging

onset on Nov. 5, 2011).

4

Id. at p. 235, 260, 346 & 355.

5

Id. at p. 233.

6

Id. at p. 70.

7

Id. at p. 72.

8

Id. at p. 76.

2

Case 4:15-cv-00040-JLH Document 11 Filed 07/18/16 Page 2 of 13
that Wing can do.9

 The ALJ concluded that Wing is not disabled and denied the

application.10

After the Appeals Council denied review,11 the ALJ’s decision became the

Commissioner’s final decision for the purpose of judicial review.12 Wing filed this

case to challenge the decision.13 This recommendation explains why the court should

affirm the decision.

Wing’s allegations. Wing challenges most aspects of the decision: (1) she

contends the ALJ failed to fully and fairly develop the record — she says the ALJ

should ordered a consultative mental exam; (2) she claims the ALJ failed to consider

evidence detracting from unfavorable findings, particularly statements about

medication side effects, insomnia, depression, fatigue, and stress; (3) she challenges

the evaluation of her credibility — the decision, she says, is inconsistent with the

ALJ’s hearing statement about the credibility of her testimony; (4) she maintains the

9

Id. at p. 77.

10Id. at p. 78.

11Id. at p. 1.

12See 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).

13Docket entry # 1.

3

Case 4:15-cv-00040-JLH Document 11 Filed 07/18/16 Page 3 of 13
ALJ should have articulated the amount of weight given treating source medical

evidence; and (5) she disagrees with the determination that she can do some light

work, insisting she cannot do her past work.14

Applicable legal principles. When reviewing a decision denying an

application for disability benefits, the court must determine whether substantial

evidence supports the decision and whether the ALJ made a legal error.15 For

substantial evidence to exist, a reasonable mind must accept the evidence as adequate

to support the determination that Wing can do some light work and that work exists

that Wing can do.16

“Light work involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent

lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds.”17 The ALJ determined

Wing’s impairments posed non-exertional limitations and placed the following

14Docket entry # 9.

15See 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.”).

16Britton 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).

1720 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(b) & 416.967(b).

4

Case 4:15-cv-00040-JLH Document 11 Filed 07/18/16 Page 4 of 13
limitations on light work:

(1) occasional climbing ramps/stairs, balancing, stooping, and crouching;

(2) no climbing ladders/ropes/scaffolds;

(3) frequent kneeling or crawling;

(4) frequent handling and fingering with the right hand,

(5) avoid moderate exposure to hazardous machinery and unprotected

heights;

(6) avoid moderate exposure to fumes, dusts, gases, and poorly

ventilated areas;

(7) jobs allowing the use of a hand-held assistive device for balance

during prolonged ambulation;

(8) routine but superficial incidental interpersonal contact;

(9) tasks with several variables, learned by experience; and

(10) little supervision for routine tasks and detailed supervision for nonroutine tasks.

 

The question for the Court is whether a reasonable mind will accept the

evidence as adequate to show Wing can work within these parameters. This question

must be answered in the affirmative for the following reasons: 

1. The medical evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC determination. 

The claimant must prove her case with medical evidence; her subjective

5

Case 4:15-cv-00040-JLH Document 11 Filed 07/18/16 Page 5 of 13
allegations are not enough to prove she is disabled.18 Wing presented

medical evidence, but it doesn’t support all required limitations. 

Wing’s most limiting impairment is likely diabetes. She’s had diabetes

since 1996. Since then, Wing received treatment for diabetes and

worked as a LPN. Receiving treatment and working indicates treatment

controls Wing’s symptoms. An impairment that can be controlled by

treatment isn’t disabling under social security law.19 

A treatment note written 11 days before Wing stopped working is

particularly probative. On that day, Wing told her doctor that she had

been feeling great.20 Feeling great is inconsistent with alleging disabling

symptoms 11 days later, where evidence generated shortly afterward

suggests no deterioration. The inconsistency weighs against Wing’s

subjective allegations.

1842 U.S.C. § 423 (d)(5)(A) (“An individual’s statement as to pain or other

symptoms shall not alone be conclusive evidence of disability...; there must be

medical signs and findings, established by medically acceptable clinical or laboratory

diagnostic techniques, which show the existence of a medical impairment...which

could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged and

which...would lead to a conclusion that the individual is under a disability”); 20

C.F.R. §§ 404.1508 & 416.908 (“A physical or mental impairment must be established

by medical evidence consisting of signs, symptoms, and laboratory findings, not only

by your statement of symptoms.”); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 & 416.929 (“[S]tatements

about your pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that you are disabled; there

must be medical signs and laboratory findings which show that you have a medical

impairment(s) which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other

symptoms alleged and which, when considered with all of the other evidence

(including statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other

symptoms which may reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical signs and

laboratory findings), would lead to a conclusion that you are disabled.”).

19Brown v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 535, 540 (8th Cir. 2004); Estes v. Barnhart, 275

F.3d 722, 725 (8th Cir. 2002).

20SSA record at p. 358.

6

Case 4:15-cv-00040-JLH Document 11 Filed 07/18/16 Page 6 of 13
After she stopped working, Wing lost her medical insurance. A few

months later, she established care at an indigent care clinic and obtained

prescribed medication from the clinic. Her doctor encouraged her to

work very hard on losing weight and to walk after every meal.21 The

recommendation to walk after every meal contradicts Wing’s claim that

she can barely walk. Her clinic doctor suspected “if she will control her

diabetes [it] will take care of itself.”22

2. Medical expert opinion supports the ALJ’s decision. The

Commissioner’s regulations permit an ALJ to obtain expert medical

opinion to help in determining the nature and severity of the claimant’s

impairments, what the claimant can still do despite her impairments, and

the claimant’s physical or mental restrictions.23

According to medical experts, the medical evidence supports light work

with postural and environmental limits.24 These medical opinions are

probative because they support Wing being able to perform light work;

especially in light of the finding by one of her medical providers (made

only five months before she stopped working) that Wing was limited to

not lifting more than 50 pounds.25 Agency medical opinion evidence is

more limiting than treating source evidence, but it supports the ALJ’s

determination that Wing can lift 20 pounds. 

Wing maintains the ALJ should have articulated the weight given to

treating source medical evidence, but her argument applies to medical

21Id. at p. 545.

22Id. at p. 670.

2320 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(2) & 416.927(a)(2).

24SSA record at pp. 527, 561 & 655.

25Id. at pp. 315 & 652.

7

Case 4:15-cv-00040-JLH Document 11 Filed 07/18/16 Page 7 of 13
opinion evidence, not all evidence.26 The decision reflects a thorough

consideration of treating source medical evidence, to include evidence

preceding the time period for which benefits were denied.27

3. Based on the record, there was no need for a mental diagnostic

exam. The ALJ must order “medical examinations and tests only if the

medical records presented to him do not give sufficient medical evidence

to determine whether the claimant is disabled.”28 Treatment notes show

Wing complained to medical providers about depression, but depression

“is not necessarily disabling.”29

While medical providers prescribed anti-depressants, that fact alone does

not suggest a need for a consultative mental exam.30 Wing lived with her

fiancee, visited with her grandchildren, attended church, shopped for

groceries, and talked on the phone with others on a daily basis. Wing

had some formal mental health treatment from 2000 to 2002, but not

since. Agency mental health experts characterized depression as not

severe.31 The evidence suggests no severe mental impairment.32

26The policy is set out in SSR 96-2p, Pol’y Interpretation Ruling Titles II &

XVI, Giving Controlling Weight to Treating Source Med. Opinions.

27The ALJ discussed medical evidence beginning 11 years before the alleged

onset date.

28Barrett v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 1019, 1023 (8th Cir. 1994).

29Trenary v. Bowen, 898 F.2d 1361, 1364 (8th Cir. 1990).

30Hensley v. Barnhart, 352 F.3d 353, 357 (8th Cir. 2003) (“The mere fact that

[the claimant] has been prescribed antidepressants on at least one occasion is not

enough to require the ALJ to inquire further into the condition by ordering a

psychological evaluation.”).

31SSA record at pp. 540 & 558.

32Byes v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 913, 916 (8th Cir. 2012) (“If sufficient evidence

alerts the ALJ to the possibility of a severe mental impairment, the ALJ must further

8

Case 4:15-cv-00040-JLH Document 11 Filed 07/18/16 Page 8 of 13
4. Inconsistencies support the credibility evaluation. An ALJ must

evaluate the claimant’s credibility because subjective complaints play a

role in determining the claimant’s ability to work.33 To evaluate Wing’s

credibility, the ALJ followed the required two-step process and

considered the required factors,34 so the dispositive question is whether

substantial evidence supports the credibility evaluation.

An ALJ may discount a claimant’s subjective complaints “if there are

inconsistencies in the evidence as a whole.”35 The ALJ properly relied

on inconsistency in discounting Wing’s allegations. Wing reported

disabling back pain that prevents walking, but diagnostic imaging shows

no reason for such limitation. Imaging of the lumbar spine shows grade

I (least severe) spondylolisthesis at level L5.36 The least severe grade of

spondylolisthesis can cause some pain, but not such severe pain as to

prevent walking. Wing’s doctor told her to walk after each meal. The

doctor’s recommendation is inconsistent with Wing’s allegations.37

Wing ostensibly stopped working due to back pain. The imaging of the

back supports the type of low back pain that might prevent the lifting

needed to work as a LPN, but the ALJ required less lifting capacity and

limited postural functions that can aggravate low back pain. 

develop the record about mental impairments before ruling on the severity of the

claimant’s impairment(s).”).

33Ellis v. Barnhart, 392 F.3d 988, 995-96 (8th Cir. 2005).

34SSR 96-7p, Pol’y Interpretation Ruling Titles II & XVI: Evaluation of

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

Statements.

35Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984).

36SSA record at p. 515. Wing claims a 2009 MRI showed a herniated disk at

level T12-L1, but there’s no medical evidence of a herniated disk.

37Myers v. Colvin, 721 F.3d 521, 527 (8th Cir. 2013).

9

Case 4:15-cv-00040-JLH Document 11 Filed 07/18/16 Page 9 of 13
Inconsistencies support the credibility evaluation, but the record contains

a statement that, on its surface, appears inconsistent with the credibility

evaluation. During the hearing — when asked whether the ALJ wanted

to hear testimony from Wing’s fiancee — the ALJ stated, “Okay, well,

I find her testimony to be credible, so I don’t think that I need to hear

from him.”38 In the decision, the ALJ “granted little probative weight to

the claimant’s testimony” because “the paucity of the evidence does not

support the claimant’s ultimate allegation of disability,” and because her

“ability to perform activities of daily living, in conjunction with the

medical evidence demonstrating minimal abnormalities, reflects a

significant functional capacity....”39

According to Wing, finding her testimony credible while granting her

testimony little probative weight is inconsistent, but the ALJ’s findings

show the ALJ credited Wing’s testimony, just not to the extent of being

disabled. The following comparison of Wing’s testimony with the ALJ’s

findings shows why there’s really no inconsistency:

Wing’s testimony ALJ’s findings

Back pain prevents me from

working as a LPN. Bending,

lifting, and pushing a medicine

chart causes back pain.

Wing experiences chronic

low back pain. She’s limited

to light work involving

occasional postural functions. 

She can no longer work as a

LPN.

38SSA record at p. 123.

39Id. at p. 76.

10

Case 4:15-cv-00040-JLH Document 11 Filed 07/18/16 Page 10 of 13
I get dizzy and need a cane for

balance.

Wing requires work that

allows her to use a cane and

doesn’t involve balance risks:

i.e., moderate exposure to

hazardous machinery,

unprotected heights, or

climbing ladders/ropes/

scaffolds.

I have a herniated disk at level

T12/L1. (There’s no medical

evidence of a herniated disk.)

A herniated disk is a severe

impairment. Wing

experiences chronic low back

pain and requires work

involving limited postural

functions.

In the past, I had surgery for

right carpal tunnel syndrome. 

(There’s no medical evidence of

carpal tunnel surgery.)

Carpal tunnel syndrome is a

severe impairment. Wing

requires work involving a

reduction in handling and

fingering with the right hand.

Uncontrolled diabetes causes

fatigue.

Non-compliance increases

symptoms. Wing’s doctor

said her symptoms will take

care of itself if she will

control her diabetes.

I don’t like crowds and prefer to

stay home. Problems with sleep

cause me to be irritable and can

make it hard to concentrate.

Wing requires work

involving routine but

superficial incidental

interpersonal contact; tasks

with several variables,

learned by experience; little

supervision for routine tasks;

and detailed supervision for

non-routine tasks.

11

Case 4:15-cv-00040-JLH Document 11 Filed 07/18/16 Page 11 of 13
The comparison shows the ALJ found Wing credible, but not to the

extent that she can do no work. The ALJ properly relied on

inconsistencies in assigning weight to Wing’s testimony.

5. Vocational evidence supports the decision. The determination that

Wing can do her past work flows from testimony about past work. Wing

testified that she hurt her back in 2004, working as a LPN. Her back

didn’t improve, so her employer assigned her to outpatient scheduling.40

A vocational expert classified that work as sedentary, semi-skilled work

as a receptionist.41 The vocational expert classified her work as a LPN

as medium work, performed as heavy work.

The ALJ asked a vocational expert whether a person with Wing’s

limitations can do past work.42 According to the vocational expert, a

person who can do light work with the ALJ’s limitations can work as a

receptionist.43 That opinion supports the determination that Wing can do

her past work as a receptionist. A person who can do her past work is

not disabled under social security law.44

The ALJ asked about other available work. The vocational expert

identified appointment clerk, information clerk and telephone solicitor

as available jobs.45 These jobs show work exists that Wing can do,

regardless of whether such work exists where she lives, whether a job

vacancy exists, or whether she would be hired if she applied for work.

40Id. at pp. 92-93.

41Id. at pp. 124.

42Id. at pp. 125-26.

43Id. at p. 126.

4420 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4) (“If you can still do your past

relevant work, we will find that you are not disabled.”).

45SSA record at p. 126.

12

Case 4:15-cv-00040-JLH Document 11 Filed 07/18/16 Page 12 of 13
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. Wing’s impairments do

not prevent her past work. The ALJ made no reversible legal error. For these reasons,

the undersigned magistrate judge recommends DENYING Wing’s request for relief

(docket entry # 2) and AFFIRMING the Commissioner’s decision.

Dated this 18th day of July, 2016.

 

United States Magistrate Judge

13

Case 4:15-cv-00040-JLH Document 11 Filed 07/18/16 Page 13 of 13