Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-1_06-cv-01015/USCOURTS-arwd-1_06-cv-01015-0/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)

---

Michael J. Astrue became the Social Security Commissioner on February 12, 2007, 1

and pursuant to F.R.C.P. 25(d(1), he has been substituted for Jo Anne B. Barnhart as

defendant in this suit.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

EL DORADO DIVISION

ALMEDIA HENDERSON PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-1015

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE , COMMISSIONER, 1

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Now on this 20th day of March, 2007, the captioned matter,

wherein plaintiff claims that defendant erred in denying her a

closed period of disability and Social Security disability

insurance benefits, comes on for review.

1. Plaintiff, Almedia Henderson ("Henderson") went through

the tenth grade in school, obtained a GED, and received her

certification as a nurse's aide. Her past relevant work

experience was as a home manager training aide and home health

aide. She applied for a closed period of disability, from

September 1, 2002, through February 1, 2004, alleging disability

due to back and shoulder pain, right knee impairment, headaches,

and hypertension. At the time of the administrative hearing on

her application for benefits, she was 61 years old.

2. The Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") conducted the

standard sequential evaluation, finding that Henderson had not

been gainfully employed during the closed period, and that she had

Case 1:06-cv-01015-JLH Document 11 Filed 03/20/07 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

a severe impairment within the meaning of the Social Security Act,

but that she did not have an impairment or combination of

impairments which meets or exceeds those listed in Appendix 1 to

Subpart P, Regulations No. 4.

The ALJ discredited Henderson's complaints of disabling pain,

finding them inconsistent with the evidence as a whole. He noted

that during the relevant period, Henderson was able to babysit her

grandchildren, shop, drive, and walk for errands and exercise, and

that she used no prescription medication. He also noted that

Henderson testified that she would have been working during the

closed period if she had not been laid off, and that her doctors

did not restrict her from work activities. 

The ALJ found that Henderson had the residual functional

capacity ("RFC") to lift 50 pounds occasionally and 25 pounds

frequently; sit 6 hours in an 8-hour day; and stand or walk 6

hours in an 8-hour day.

The ALJ understood Henderson's past relevant work to consist

of providing instructions to patients, with no lifting involved,

and concluded that she could have performed that work during the

closed period. He, therefore, rendered an unfavorable decision

on Henderson's claim on May 20, 2005.

3. The Appeals Council denied Henderson's request for

administrative review, making the decision of the ALJ the final

agency decision, and Henderson filed the pending Complaint seeking

Case 1:06-cv-01015-JLH Document 11 Filed 03/20/07 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

judicial review.

4. Henderson alleges that the ALJ's decision is not

supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, for

the following reasons:

* The ALJ's pain/credibility analysis was infirm because

Henderson was taking pain medications; her doctors were

not asked for an opinion on her work capacity; her daily

activities were not inconsistent with her complaints of

pain; and because of her condition she had only been

working 15 hours a week when she was laid off.

* The only medical evidence to support the ALJ's residual

functional capacity assessment came from non-treating,

non-examining physicians.

* The ALJ failed to fully ascertain the requirements of

Henderson's past relevant work.

5. The Court's role upon review is to determine whether the

decision of the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence

on the record as a whole. Ramirez v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 576 (8th

Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance but

enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support a

conclusion. Id. The Court must consider not only the evidence

supporting the ALJ's decision, but also that which fairly detracts

from it, and must affirm if the record -- viewed as a whole --

contains substantial evidence to support the decision. Id. The

Case 1:06-cv-01015-JLH Document 11 Filed 03/20/07 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: <pageID>
-4-

Court may not reverse simply because the record also contains

substantial evidence that would have supported a contrary

decision. Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742 (8th Cir. 2001). 

The burden rests on Henderson to prove that she had a

disability during the alleged closed period that prevented her

from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. Pearsall v.

Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211 (8th Cir. 2001).

6. The Administrative Record reflects the following facts

relevant to Henderson's contentions:

* Henderson worked as a nurse's aide until she was laid

off, in August, 2002, because a former worker returned

and wanted her job back. Henderson was not happy to be

laid off, and testified that it was "kind of hurtful."

* When she was laid off, Henderson's back and shoulder

were bothering her, and had been for quite some time,

but she had continued working because she had children

she was helping to put through college. She did not

look for work to replace her job, but she would have

kept working if she had not been laid off. 

* After Henderson was laid off, she babysat for her

daughter's three children -, an infant, a preschooler,

and a grade schooler - while her daughter was in school.

* On September 18, 2002, Henderson completed a Disability

Report stating that her back, left shoulder, and knees

Case 1:06-cv-01015-JLH Document 11 Filed 03/20/07 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: <pageID>
-5-

limited her ability to work, because they hurt when she

lifted, vacuumed, or sat too long. She said she became

unable to work because of these conditions as of August

15, 2002, and that she had cut back her hours to 5 hours

a day, three days a week. She indicated that she was

working at the time she completed the report. She was

taking Tylenol, Aleve, and ibuprofen at the time.

* On September 19, 2002, Henderson applied for Social

Security benefits. That day, Henderson also completed

a Work Activity Report showing that she was working 15

hours a week, and that she had left her previous 40-

hour-a-week job when she was laid off in August, 2002.

* On September 20, 2002, Henderson saw Dr. Carlton Newsome

for an initial evaluation of back pain which she had had

for "about one month." No particular abnormalities were

noted on the exam, and no treatment was prescribed.

* On October 30, 2002, Henderson completed a Disability

Supplemental Interview Outline. She indicated that she

could do laundry and dishes, change the sheets, drive,

walk for exercise or errands, and shop for groceries,

but vacuuming put a strain on her back and raking leaves

hurt her shoulder "very bad." At that time she was

working three days a week, for a total of nine to

fifteen hours a week. She had pain in her lower back

Case 1:06-cv-01015-JLH Document 11 Filed 03/20/07 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: <pageID>
A non-steroidal anti-inflammatory prescription medication used to treat -- among 2

other things -- osteoarthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. Physicians' Desk Reference,

2007 Ed.

"Forward movement of the body of one of the lower lumbar vertebrae on the vertebra 3

below it, or on the sacrum." Stedman's Medical Dictionary, 28th Ed.

"Degeneration or deficient development of a portion of the vertebra." Stedman's 4

Medical Dictionary, 28th Ed.

-6-

and her shoulder. She was taking Celebrex , Tylenol and 2

Aleve.

* On December 4, 2002, Henderson had x-rays of her lumbar

spine. These revealed "[m]inimal degenerative changes

of the lumbar spine with Grade 1 spondylolisthesis of 3

L4-L5, presumably degenerative in nature. No

spondylolysis is seen." X-rays were also taken of her 4

left shoulder. They were normal.

* On February 3, 2003, Henderson completed a Disability

Supplemental Interview Outline. She indicated that she

was working three hours a day, five days a week, at

"Home Health," although she "hurt daily," and if she

worked a long period, "I have to walk bending over."

She indicated that she vacuumed at this job. She

further indicated that her back pain interfered with

"lifting a patient on my job August 2002."

* On February 5, 2003, Henderson completed a Work History

Report. She stated that she was at that time working as

a nurse aide. Her job involved vacuuming, mopping,

giving baths, and "home maker chores." She lifted 50

Case 1:06-cv-01015-JLH Document 11 Filed 03/20/07 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: <pageID>
The physician's signature on this document is illegible. 5

-7-

pounds occasionally and less than ten pounds frequently.

* On March 31, 2003, a physician filed out a form 5

entitled General Physical Examination on Henderson. At

that time Henderson reported using Aleve, Tylenol, and

Celebrex as needed. Her range of motion was normal in

all respects except for forward elevation of her left

shoulder. The diagnosis was "[o]stearthritis of lumbar

spine, shoulder & knee. Mild to moderate in nature." In

response to a question asking the physician to assess

the severity of Henderson's limitations on a scale of

mild-moderate-severe, the physician noted "[patient]

probably has mod[erate] limitations in lifting [more

than] 10 lbs. Also [patient] has great difficulty

raising [left] arm above head but strength is intact.

Overall only mild limitations."

* On April 2, 2003, Dr. Robert Forward read an x-ray of

Henderson's knee to show "[e]vidence of mild to moderate

osteoarthritis of the right knee."

* On April 9, 2003, Dr. Jerry Thomas filled out a

Functional Capacity Assessment form regarding Henderson.

Dr. Thomas indicated that Henderson could occasionally

lift 50 pounds, and frequently lift 25 pounds. She

could stand or walk six hours in an eight-hour day, and

Case 1:06-cv-01015-JLH Document 11 Filed 03/20/07 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: <pageID>
-8-

sit for the same length of time. She was limited in her

ability to do overhead work with her left arm.

* In February, 2005, Henderson went back to work at a job

essentially like the one she was laid off from, only the

work was harder, because she was working with disabled

people who were less independent and needed more care

than those she had previously been working with.

7. Henderson first contends that the ALJ did not conduct a

proper pain/credibility analysis under Polaski v. Heckler, 739

F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984)(subsequent history omitted), which

requires consideration of a claimant's daily activities; the

duration, frequency and intensity of pain; precipitating and

aggravating factors; dosage, effectiveness and side effects of

medication; and functional restrictions. 

The Court does not agree. The ALJ considered Henderson's

daily activities (babysitting, shopping, housework, cooking), pain

medication (mostly over the counter), and functional restrictions

(none), as they bore on her testimony about the duration,

frequency and intensity of her pain. He also considered her

testimony that she would not have quit her job, had she not been

laid off, and that she returned to similar but more difficult

work. 

While it is true that taking only over the counter pain

medications does not necessarily discredit complaints of disabling

Case 1:06-cv-01015-JLH Document 11 Filed 03/20/07 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: <pageID>
-9-

pain, the fact that a claimant does not regularly require

prescription medication can create reasonable doubt about the

extent of pain. Curran-Kicksey v. Barnhart, 315 F.3d 964, 969 (8th

Cir. 2003). The Court notes that Henderson also took Celebrex, a

prescription medication used to treat osteoarthritis, but does not

find that this changes the analysis.

It is also true that a claimant need not be helpless or

bedridden to be found disabled, but looking after three young

children calls for more physical ability than the "light housework

and visiting with friends" which "provides little or no support

for the finding that a claimant can perform full-time competitive

work." Hogg v. Shalala, 45 F.3d 276, 278 (8th Cir. 1995). In

addition, Henderson testified that she would not have quit her job

in August, 2002, and the documents she filled out in pursuit of

benefits indicate that she continued to work at similar jobs for

15 hours a week at least into February, 2003. Thus, Henderson's

level of activity could create reasonable doubt about the extent

of her pain.

Finally, the lack of any functional restrictions placed upon

Henderson by her doctors could reasonably create such doubt.

Given the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds no error

in the ALJ's finding that Henderson's complaints of disabling pain

were not completely credible. The ALJ properly acknowledged and

considered the factors set out in Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d

Case 1:06-cv-01015-JLH Document 11 Filed 03/20/07 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: <pageID>
-10-

1320 (8th Cir. 1984), and found Henderson's level of activity

inconsistent with complaints of disabling pain. There is

substantial evidence to support this finding.

8. Henderson also contends that the only medical evidence

to support the ALJ's residual functional capacity assessment came

from a non-treating, non-examining physician. While that is true,

the ALJ specifically discounted the agency assessment, relying

instead on Henderson's own testimony that she would not have left

her job if she had not been laid off, and that she returned to a

more difficult job. It is appropriate to determine residual

functional capacity on the basis of "all the relevant evidence,

including . . . an individual's own description of his

limitations." McKinney v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 860, 863 (8th Cir.

2000). The Court finds no error in the ALJ's functional capacity

assessment, especially when considering that Henderson was able to

return to a more difficult job without having had any treatment

for the conditions she describes as disabling.

9. Finally, Henderson contends that the ALJ failed to fully

ascertain the requirements of Henderson's past relevant work.

Given that Henderson would not have left that past work if she had

not been laid off, continued to do similar work on a part-time

basis while babysitting her three grandchildren, and ultimately

returned to more difficult work of the same type without having

received any treatment for her alleged disabling conditions, the

Case 1:06-cv-01015-JLH Document 11 Filed 03/20/07 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: <pageID>
-11-

Court fails to see how any shortcoming in this area could be

prejudicial to Henderson.

10. Having reviewed the entire record in this matter, and

fully considered the arguments of the parties, the Court concludes

that there is substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's

decision. It will, therefore, be affirmed by Judgment entered

concurrently herewith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01015-JLH Document 11 Filed 03/20/07 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: <pageID>