Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_15-cv-00325/USCOURTS-ared-4_15-cv-00325-0/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)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

Shawn Stingley Jackson Plaintiff

v. No. 4:15CV00325 BSM-JTR

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner,

Social Security Administration Defendant

Recommended Disposition

Instructions

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

Brian S. Miller. 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 Miller 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-00325-BSM Document 15 Filed 04/06/16 Page 1 of 9
Reasoning for Recommended Disposition

Shawn Stingley Jackson seeks judicial review of the denial of his application

for social security disability benefits.3

 Jackson last worked as a truck driver.4 He

claims he has been disabled since he lost his job in February 2012. He based

disability on a remote left shoulder injury, a remote left leg injury, diabetes, and high

blood pressure.5

The Commissioner’s decision. The Commissioner’s ALJ identified severe

impairments: remote history of left arm and left leg fractures with surgical repair,

remote history of left shoulder surgery, hypertension, and diabetes.6

 The ALJ

determined Jackson can do some medium work,7

 to include his past work as a truck

driver and an explosives operator.8

 The ALJ also determined that other work exists

that Jackson can do and denied the application.9

3

SSA record at pp. 153 & 160 (applying on Aug. 13, 2012 and alleging

disability beginning Feb. 29, 2012).

4

Id. at p. 182.

5

Id. at p. 181.

6

Id. at p. 14.

7

Id. at pp. 15 & 24.

8

Id. at p. 23.

9

Id. at pp. 24-25.

2

Case 4:15-cv-00325-BSM Document 15 Filed 04/06/16 Page 2 of 9
After the Appeals Council declined to review,10 the ALJ’s decision became the

Commissioner’s final decision for the purpose of judicial review.11 Jackson filed this

case to challenge the decision.12 This recommendation explains why the court should

affirm the decision.

Jackson’s allegations. Jackson claims the ALJ should have ordered a second

consultative exam to fairly and fully develop the record. He maintains the ALJ erred

by determining he can do medium work. He contends the ALJ failed to conduct a

function-by-function analysis of his ability to work. A function-by-function analysis,

he says, shows he can’t do even a light-work job as an explosives operator. He

maintains the regulations preclude the alternative finding that other work exists that

he can do. For these reasons, he argues, substantial evidence does not support the

decision.13

Applicable legal principles. In reviewing a decision denying an application

for disability benefits, the court must determine whether substantial evidence supports

10Id. at p. 1.

11See 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).

12Docket entry # 1.

13Docket entry # 13.

3

Case 4:15-cv-00325-BSM Document 15 Filed 04/06/16 Page 3 of 9
the decision.14 Substantial evidence exists if a reasonable mind will accept the

evidence as adequate to support the decision.15

For substantial evidence to exist, a reasonable mind must accept the evidence

as adequate to show Jackson can do medium work and work exists that he can do.16

“Medium work involves lifting no more than 50 pounds at a time with frequent lifting

or carrying of objects weighing up to 25 pounds.”17 The ALJ limited medium work

by requiring occasional kneeling, crawling, reaching, handling, and pushing/pulling/

lifting with the left arm.18 A reasonable mind will accept the evidence as adequate to

support the decision for the following reasons:

1. Medical evidence shows nothing preventing some medium work. 

A claimant must prove disability with medical evidence; subjective

allegations are not enough to prove disability.19 Remote medical

14Slusser v. Astrue, 557 F.3d 923, 925 (8th Cir. 2009).

15Britton v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 328, 330 (8th Cir. 1990).

16Britton, 908 F.2d at 330 (substantial evidence exists if a reasonable mind will

accept evidence as adequate to support conclusion).

17 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(c) & 416.967(c).

18SSA record at p. 24.

1942 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

4

Case 4:15-cv-00325-BSM Document 15 Filed 04/06/16 Page 4 of 9
evidence shows Jackson sustained left leg and left arm fractures in

1995,20 and underwent left shoulder surgery in 2008.21 This history

provides no basis for disability because later Jackson did medium

work,22 and because medical evidence shows no deterioration in

symptoms.

Soon after he stopped working, Jackson twice sought medical treatment

for left shoulder pain.23 His shoulder was impinged.24 Diagnostic

imaging was negative.25 He was treated with injection therapy and sent

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.”).

20SSA record at p. 342.

21Id. at p. 296.

22Naber v. Shalala, 22 F.3d 186, 189 (8th Cir. 1994) (impairment “that was not

disabling during working years and has not worsened cannot be used to prove present

disability;” Dixon v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 237, 238 (8th Cir. 1990) (impairments are

disabling where claimant worked with them for years without any worsening of 

condition).

23SSA record at p. 411 (Apr. 7, 2012) & p. 396 (May 7, 2012).

24Id. at p. 399.

25Id. at pp. 395 & 415-16.

5

Case 4:15-cv-00325-BSM Document 15 Filed 04/06/16 Page 5 of 9
to physical therapy.26 He went to physical therapy once.27

After applying for disability benefits, Jackson underwent a consultative

exam.28 The examiner found mild tenderness and a mild decease in

range of motion with minimal discomfort in the left shoulder.29 The

descriptors mild and minimal suggest no disabling symptoms. 

Diagnostic imaging of the left shoulder and left ankle were negative.30

Jackson could walk normally, bend, squat, and rise. According to the

examiner, Jackson should be able to sit, stand, and walk for full

workday, but should not lift and carry heavy objects with the left arm.31

After reviewing the examiner’s report and recent treatment records,

agency medical experts opined that Jackson has no severe impairment.32

A reasonable will accept recent treatment history and medical opinion

evidence as adequate to support the determination that Jackson can do

medium work.

Jackson contends the ALJ failed to do a function-by-function analysis of

his ability to work, but the medium-work determination embodies an

implicit finding that Jackson has the functional capacity to do medium

work.33 The ALJ considered alleged symptoms, treatment history, work

history, and the use of over-the-counter medications in determining

26Id. at p. 399.

27Id. at p. 407 (May 16, 2012) & p. 404 (no show on May 22, 2012).

28Id. at p. 233.

29Id. at p. 234.

30Id. at p. 235.

31Id.

32Id. at pp. 61, 69, 77 & 87.

33Depover v. Barnhart, 349 F.3d 563, 567 (8th Cir. 2003) (record reflected

implicit finding about claimant’s ability to sit, stand, and walk).

6

Case 4:15-cv-00325-BSM Document 15 Filed 04/06/16 Page 6 of 9
functional capacity.34 The ALJ accounted for residual symptoms flowing

from remote injuries by limiting postural functions and use of he left

arm.35 To the extent Jackson maintains he can’t do his past light work

job, a person who can do medium work can also do light work.36

2. The ALJ fairly and fully developed the adequate record. The ALJ

must fairly and fully develop the record as to the matters at issue.37 The

pleadings placed the left shoulder, left forearm, and left leg at issue.38

The ALJ sought treatment records and ordered a consultative exam. The

examiner found nothing precluding medium work.

The exam provided the core basis of the “no severe impairment” opinion. 

Because Jackson later submitted treatment records for the 1995 left leg

and arm fractures and 2008 left shoulder surgery, he says the ALJ should

have ordered a second consultative exam, but no need existed for another

exam. The agency examiner was aware of Jackson’s medical history.39

The examiner specializes in the type of impairments Jackson complained

about. The examiner conducted a thorough exam and reviewed

contemporaneous diagnostic imaging. Remote treatment records cannot

change the result.

3. Vocational evidence supports the decision. According to a

34SSA record at p. 23 (Jackson “may have some level of pain associated with

his history of left arm, left shoulder, and left leg surgeries,” but he has “adequate limb

function, mobility and range of motion and his activities ... are not unduly

restricted”).

35Id. at p. 24.

3620 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(c) & 416.967(c).

37Landess v. Weinberger, 490 F.2d 1187, 1189 (8th Cir. 1974).

38SSA record at pp. 181, 188, 196, 206 & 209.

39Id. at p. 233 (documenting medical history of left ankle surgery and left

shoulder reconstruction).

7

Case 4:15-cv-00325-BSM Document 15 Filed 04/06/16 Page 7 of 9
vocational expert, Jackson’s past work as a truck driver is medium work;

the work as an explosive operator is light work that Jackson performed

as medium work.40 The vocational expert testified that a person with

Jackson’s limitations can work as a truck driver and an explosives

operator.41 Based on this, the ALJ determined Jackson can do his past

jobs. Because a person who can do his past work is not disabled under

social security law,42 the ALJ properly concluded that Jackson is not

disabled.

The ALJ asked the vocational expert about other available work. The

vocational expert identified electrical tester.43 Even if Jackson cannot

work as a truck driver or an explosives operator, the availability of other

work shows work exists that he can do, regardless of whether such work

exists where he lives, whether a job vacancy exists, or whether he would

be hired if he applied for work.44

Jackson maintains the regulations preclude the alternative finding, but

the regulations do not preclude an alternative finding. An application for

disability benefits presents the question of whether the claimant’s

impairments are so severe — considering his age, education, and work

experience — as to prevent him from doing any kind of substantial

gainful activity existing in significant numbers in the national

economy.45 If the claimant can do some substantial gainful activity, he

is not disabled, regardless of whether he can do his past work — like

working as a truck driver or explosives operator — or whether he must

40Id. at pp. 52-53.

41Id. at p. 53.

4220 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.”).

43SSA record at p. 54.

4442 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(B).

45Id.

8

Case 4:15-cv-00325-BSM Document 15 Filed 04/06/16 Page 8 of 9
adjust other work — like working as an electrical tester. The ALJ did

not err in making an alternative determination.

Conclusion and Recommendation

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. The ALJ made no legal

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

Jackson’s request for relief (docket entry # 2) and AFFIRMING the Commissioner’s

decision.

Dated this 6th day of April, 2016.

_________________________

United States Magistrate Judge

9

Case 4:15-cv-00325-BSM Document 15 Filed 04/06/16 Page 9 of 9