Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_16-cv-00095/USCOURTS-ared-2_16-cv-00095-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 865
Nature of Suit: Social Security - RSI (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

EASTERN DIVISION

ANDREW LEE CLINKSCALE PLAINTIFF

v. 2:16CV00095-BSM-JJV

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

ACTING COMMISSIONER,

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION DEFENDANT

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS

The following recommended disposition has been sent to Chief United States District

Judge Brian S. Miller. Any party may serve and file written objections to this

recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis

for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and

the evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must

be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen (14)

days from the date of the findings and recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the

opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal

questions of fact.

If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different,

or additional evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before either the District Judge

or Magistrate Judge, you must, at the time you file your written objections, include the

following:

1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.

2. Why the evidence to be proffered at the new hearing (if such a hearing is 

granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge. 

3. The details of any testimony desired to be introduced at the new hearing in the 

1

Case 2:16-cv-00095-BSM Document 15 Filed 12/14/16 Page 1 of 6
form of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or other nontestimonial evidence desired to be introduced at the new hearing.

Fromthis submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional

evidentiary hearing. Mail your objections and “Statement of Necessity” to:

Clerk, United States District Court

Eastern District of Arkansas

600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325

DISPOSITION

Plaintiff, Andrew Clinkscale, appeals the final decision of the Commissioner of the

Social Security Administration denying his claim for disability insurance benefits. For the

reasons set out below, I recommend the decision of the Commissioner be REVERSED and

REMANDED. 

I. BACKGROUND

On November 6, 2012, Mr. Clinkscale protectively filed for disability insurance

benefits due to back and shoulder impairments, prostate disease, chronic depression and high

blood pressure. (Tr. 236.) His claims were denied initially and upon reconsideration. At

Plaintiff’s request, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) held a hearing on August 28, 2014,

where Mr. Clinkscale appeared with his lawyer. (Tr. 32-73.) At the hearing, the ALJ heard

testimony from Mr. Clinkscale and a vocational expert. (Tr. 67-72.) The ALJ issued a

decision on January 26, 2015, finding that Mr. Clinkscale was not disabled. (Tr. 13-23.) The

Appeals Council received and considered additional information but denied Plaintiff’s

request for review, making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision. (Tr. 1-3.)

Mr. Clinkscale, who was fifty-two years old at the time of the hearing, has a twelfth

grade education. (Tr. 39, 41.) He has past relevant work as a correctional officer, laborer,

welder, assembly line production worker, bus driver, and maintenance worker. (Tr. 345-

346.)

2

Case 2:16-cv-00095-BSM Document 15 Filed 12/14/16 Page 2 of 6
II. DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE1

The ALJ found that Mr. Clinkscale had not engaged in substantial gainful activity

since June 16, 2010, and had a combination of severe impairments. (Tr. 15.) However, the

ALJ found that Mr. Clinkscale did not have an impairment or combination of impairments

meeting or equaling an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.2(Tr.

17.) According to the ALJ, Mr. Clinkscale has the residual functional capacity to do a

reduced range of light work. (Id.) Given his residual functional capacity, the ALJ

determined Plaintiff could no longer perform his past relevant work. (Tr. 21.) However,

given the testimony elicited fromthe vocational expert, the ALJ concluded other jobs existed

in significant numbers that Plaintiff could perform despite his impairments. (Tr. 22.) 

Accordingly, the ALJ determined Mr. Clinkscale was not disabled. (Tr. 23.) 

III. ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review

In reviewing the Commissioner’s decision, courts must determine whether there is

substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the decision.3 Substantial evidence

is “less than a preponderance, but sufficient for reasonable minds to find it adequate to

support the decision.”4

In reviewing the record as a whole, a court must consider both evidence that detracts

1The ALJ followed the required sequential analysis to determine: (1) whether the claimant was

engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if not, whether the claimant had a severe impairment; (3)

if so, whether the impairment (or combination of impairments) met or equaled a listed impairment;

and (4) if not, whether the impairment (or combination of impairments) prevented the claimant from

performing past relevant work; and (5) if so, whether the impairment (or combination of

impairments) prevented the claimant from performing anyother jobs available in significant numbers

in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)-(g).

 

2

420 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(d), 416.925, and 416.926.

 

3Boettcher v. Astrue, 652 F.3d 860, 863 (8th Cir. 2011); 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

 

4

Id. (citing Guilliams v. Barnhart, 393 F.3d 798, 801 (8th Cir. 2005)).

3

Case 2:16-cv-00095-BSM Document 15 Filed 12/14/16 Page 3 of 6
from the Commissioner’s decision and evidence that supports the decision; but, the decision

cannot be reversed “simply because some evidence may support the opposite conclusion.”5

 B. Mr. Clinkscale’s Argument for Reversal

Mr. Clinkscale asserts the Commissioner’s decision should be reversed because the

ALJ erred by: 1) finding he was not disabled under Listing 1.04; 2) determining he had the

residual functional capacity to perform light work and was not credible; 3) failing to give

adequate weight to his treating doctors; 4) determining he has a high school education and

is able to communicate; 5) failing to give adequate weight to his vocational experts; and 6)

failing to adequately review the additional evidence submitted to the Appeals Council. (Doc.

No. 10.) 

C. Mr. Clinkscale’s Back Impairment

Plaintiffsuffers froma significant back impairment after being injured in 2010 during

an altercation with an inmate while employed as a correctional officer. (Tr. 43.) The

altercation resulted in a torn rotator cuff and lumbar strain. (Tr. 343.) He underwent rotator

cuff surgery and two back surgeries. (Id.) 

The ALJ recited Plaintiff’s medical history (Tr. 17-21), but concluded, “The medical

records discussed above do not provide a basis to support the level of severity as alleged by

the claimant.” (Tr. 21.) She said, “Regarding back pain, there are no objective findings of

muscle atrophy or deformity or loss of range of motion in any extremity or joint. He presents

with a mild antalgic gait, but he is able to ambulate without the use of a cane.” (Id.) The

ALJ afforded “some weight” to the opinions of Dr. Kilgore, Dr. Cathey, and Dr. Strauser,

but gave great weight to the state agency physicians. (Id.) 

In reviewing the medical records from Reed W. Kilgore, M.D., I come to a different

conclusion than did the ALJ. While there was some progress made through surgical

 

5

Id. (citing Pelkey v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 575, 578 (8th Cir. 2006)).

4

Case 2:16-cv-00095-BSM Document 15 Filed 12/14/16 Page 4 of 6
intervention, Plaintiff continued to suffer from debilitating back and shoulder issues. (Tr.

675-707.) He regularly saw Dr. Kilgore for surgical intervention and injections. And while

Plaintiff did obtain some relief, that relief was temporary. (Id.) 

But most compelling is the more recent report of neurosurgeon Steven L. Cathey,

M.D. He reviewed Plaintiff’s medical history and then examined Plaintiff. (Tr. 955-956.) 

Dr. Cathey noted Plaintiff’s history of surgeries and concluded, “In my opinion, the patient

is at maximal medical improvement with regard to his original occupational injury and the

two subsequent lumbar disc procedures performed by Dr. Shahim.” (Tr. 956.) Dr. Cathey

stated, “Although Dr. Shahim had at one point suggested the patient might be a candidate for

fusion at L5-S1, there is absolutely no chance of any additional operative intervention

helping the man. I believe he should file for long-term disability benefits through Social

Security. I believe him to be disabled.” (Id.) The ALJ discounted this well-reasoned

opinion, only stating, “Dr. Cathey’s opinion is afforded some weight, as the issue of

disability is reserved to the Commissioner.” (Tr. 21.) While correct that the issue of

disability is reserved for the Commissioner, Dr. Cathey provided specific findings based on

the objective medical evidence. And irrespective of his conclusion about disability, Dr.

Cathey’s undisputed report wholly undermines the ALJ’s determination Mr. Clinkscale is

capable of performing light work. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, a reasonable mind would not accept the evidence as adequate to support

the ALJ’s decision because the decision does not sufficiently address Mr. Clinkscale’s back

impairments. For this reason, I recommend REVERSING the decision and REMANDING

the case to the Commissioner for full development of limitations posed by Plaintiff’s back

impairments. On remand, the Commissioner should consider the newly submitted evidence

and fully consider the opinions of Plaintiff’s vocational experts. (Tr. 310-312, 341-348.) 

5

Case 2:16-cv-00095-BSM Document 15 Filed 12/14/16 Page 5 of 6
Dated this 14th day of December, 2016. 

____________________________________

JOE J. VOLPE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

Case 2:16-cv-00095-BSM Document 15 Filed 12/14/16 Page 6 of 6