Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-1_15-cv-00051/USCOURTS-ared-1_15-cv-00051-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405 Review of HHS Decision

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

NORTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT EUGENE DENNY PLAINTIFF

v. No. 1:15–CV–51-JM-BD

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner,

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

Recommended Disposition

Instructions

The following recommended disposition was prepared for Judge James M.

Moody Jr. 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 Moody 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).

2Griffini 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 1:15-cv-00051-JM Document 12 Filed 01/15/16 Page 1 of 8
Reasoning for Recommended Disposition

Robert Eugene Denny seeks judicial review of the denial of his second

application for supplemental security income.3

 In the past, Mr. Denny worked as a

painter,

4

but he stopped working in 2002 to care for his disabled wife.5 In the second

application, he alleged disability since 2002, but SSI is not payable before a claimant

applies.6 For that reason, the earliest SSI is payable is September 29, 2011. Mr. Denny

based disability on degenerative changes in his spine and arm weakness.7

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

Commissioner’s ALJ identified chronic back pain as a severe impairment.8 The ALJ

determined that Mr. Denny could do some light work.9

 Because a vocational expert

3

SSA record at pp. 52-53 (applying on Sept. 29, 2011 and alleging disability

beginning Jan. 1, 2002).

4

Id. at pp. 118 & 136 

5

Id. at p. 161.

6

20 C.F.R. § 416.335; Cruse v. Bowen, 867 F.2d 1183, 1185 (8th Cir. 1989).

7

SSA record at p. 53.

8

Id. at p. 13.

9

Id. at pp. 13-14.

2

Case 1:15-cv-00051-JM Document 12 Filed 01/15/16 Page 2 of 8
identified available light work, the ALJ determined Mr. Denny was not disabled and

denied the application.10

After the Commissioner’s Appeals Council denied a request for review,11 the

decision became a final decision for judicial review.12 Mr. Denny filed this case to

challenge the decision.13

 In reviewing the decision, the court must determine whether

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

14

This recommendation explains why the court should affirm the decision.

Mr. Denny’s allegations. Mr. Denny challenges: (1) the development of the

record, arguing that the ALJ should have ordered a mental diagnostic evaluation, and

(2) the evaluation of his credibility, arguing that the ALJ should have credited his 

10

Id. at p. 18.

11

Id. at p. 1.

12

See Anderson v. Sullivan, 959 F.2d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1992) (stating, “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.

14

See 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.”).

3

Case 1:15-cv-00051-JM Document 12 Filed 01/15/16 Page 3 of 8
allegations about medication side effects. For these reasons, he maintains, substantial

evidence does not support the ALJ’s decision.15

Applicable legal principles. For substantial evidence to support the decision, a

reasonable mind must accept the evidence as adequate to show Mr. Denny could do

some light work. “Light work involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with

frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds.”16 The ALJ required

light work only involving occasional stooping, crouching, crawling, or kneeling. For

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

show Mr. Denny can work within these parameters. A reasonable mind will accept the

evidence as adequate for the following reasons: 

1. Medical evidence establishes no disabling symptoms. A claimant

must prove disability with medical evidence; his allegations are not

enough to prove he is disabled.17 The ALJ identified chronic back pain as

15Docket entry # 10.

16

20 C.F.R. § 416.967(b).

17

42 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.

§ 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. § 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

4

Case 1:15-cv-00051-JM Document 12 Filed 01/15/16 Page 4 of 8
a severe impairment, but back pain is not an impairment; it is a

symptom.18 A symptom cannot establish an impairment.19 Although the

ALJ erred by identifying a symptom as a severe impairment, it caused no

harm because the ALJ proceeded through all steps of the disabilitydetermination process.20

Despite the mistake, diagnostic imaging shows small subligamentous disc

bulges in the spine at four levels and disc desiccation at three levels.21

These diagnostic findings support complaints of back pain, but not

disabling pain.

The presence of disc bulges and the modifier “small” have little

evidentiary value because a damaged or diseased disc does not necessarily

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.”).

18Beckley v. Apfel, 152 F.3d 1056, 1059 (8th Cir. 1998) (“Pain is a nonexertional

impairment.”).

19

SSR 96-4p, Pol’y Interpretation Ruling Titles II & XVI: Symptoms, Medically

Determinable Physical & Mental Impairments, & Exertional & Nonexertional

Limitations (“A ‘symptom’ is not a ‘medically determinable physical or mental

impairment’ and no symptom by itself can establish the existence of such an

impairment.”).

20Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 156-57 (1987) (O’Connor, J., concurring)

(explaining that the Social Security Act authorizes the Commissioner to weed out

applications by claimants who cannot possibly meet the statutory definition of disability

at step two of the disability-determination process; the Commissioner identifies severe

impairments at step two).

21

SSA record at p. 216.

5

Case 1:15-cv-00051-JM Document 12 Filed 01/15/16 Page 5 of 8
mean a person will have pain or another symptom.22

 If a disc bulge

impinges on the thecal sac or a nerve root, a person will likely experience

symptoms.23

 The imaging shows no significant impingement of the thecal

sac or nerve roots.24

Medical experts who reviewed the diagnostic findings limited Mr. Denny

to light work.25 A reasonable mind will accept the evidence as adequate

because the ALJ accounted for back pain by requiring light work and

limiting stooping, crouching, crawling, and kneeling.

2. Treatment efforts undermine credibility. Because there is little

medical evidence, Mr. Denny’s claim depends on the credibility of his

subjective complaints. “Subjective complaints may be discounted if there

are inconsistencies in the evidence as a whole.”26 The record reflects

inconsistencies in the evidence as a whole.

Mr. Denny complained about many disabling symptoms — back pain,

shoulder pain, leg pain, knee pain, foot pain, chest pain, numb arms and

hands, depression, anxiety, dizziness, headaches, sleeplessness, and

ringing ears

27 — but he sought little treatment. The record documents

22

See 2 Lawyers’ Med. Cyclopedia § 16.9[C] (“Whether a patient experiences

discomfort from the disc disease depends on ...canal, and foramen size, as well as the

percentage of disc herniated.”); Dan J. Tennenhouse, Attorneys Med. Deskbook § 24:17

III (4th ed.) (“Protruded disks usually cause no symptoms.”); 2 Lawyers’ Med.

Cyclopedia § 16.9[B] (explaining that a disc “protrusion may or may not compress the

spinal cord or nerve roots, causing neurological symptoms and signs”).

23Dan J. Tennenhouse, Attorneys Med. Deskbook § 26:8(3) (4th ed.) (“[L]umbar

nerve root compression at the spine produces the sensation of pain “radiating” down

the leg along the sciatic nerve.”).

24

SSA record at p. 216.

25

Id. at pp. 225 & 226-33.

26Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984).

27

SSA record at pp. 83, 89, 98, 107, 110, 134 & 144.

6

Case 1:15-cv-00051-JM Document 12 Filed 01/15/16 Page 6 of 8
three medical visits during the time period for which benefits were

denied; the visits were for symptoms other than the ones forming the basis

of his claim.28

 Three efforts in 25 months suggests no disabling

symptoms.29 A reasonable mind would expect a person with disabling

symptoms to seek medical treatment.30 The failure to seek treatment

undermines Mr. Denny’s credibility.

Mr. Denny’s argument about medication side effects fails because it

depends on his credibility. The ALJ properly discounted credibility. The

objective medical evidence indicates that Mr. Denny overstated his

symptoms.

3. The record suggests no reason for a mental diagnostic evaluation. 

An ALJ must develop the record about mental impairment if “sufficient

evidence alerts the ALJ to the possibility of a severe mental

impairment....”31 The evidence about mental impairment consists of

Mr. Denny’s statements that he experienced depression and took an antidepressant medication. Nothing suggests the medication did not control

depressive symptoms. The mere fact that Mr. Denny took an

antidepressant did not require the ALJ to order a mental diagnostic

28

Id. at pp. 211-13 (Mar. 5, 2012, emergency room visit for pneumonia); p. 243

(Jan. 31, 2013, emergency room visit for pneumonia) & p. 237 (Feb. 7, 2013, pneumonia

followup).

29Mr. Denny reported other medical visits, but the record does not document

other visits. Pharmacy records suggest other treatment.

30Black v. Apfel, 143 F.3d 383, 386 (8th Cir. 1998) (conservative course of treatment

undermined claimant’s claim of disabling back pain); Ostronski v. Chater, 94 F.3d 413,

419 (8th Cir. 1996) (complaints of disabling pain and functional limitations are

inconsistent with the failure to take prescription pain medication or to seek regular

medical treatment for symptoms); Rautio v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 176, 179 (8th Cir. 1988) (“A

failure to seek aggressive treatment is not suggestive of disabling back pain.”).

31Byes v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 913, 916 (8th Cir. 2012).

7

Case 1:15-cv-00051-JM Document 12 Filed 01/15/16 Page 7 of 8
evaluation.32

 The evidence does not suggest the possibility of a severe

mental impairment. 

4. Vocational evidence supports the decision. After determining

Mr. Denny’s ability to work, the ALJ consulted a vocational expert. When

asked about available work within the limits set out by the ALJ, the

vocational expert identified representative jobs: cashier,

receptionist/information clerk, and office clerk.33 The availability of these

jobs shows that work exists that Mr. Denny could 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.34

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. The ALJ made no harmful

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

DENYING Mr. Denny’s request for relief (docket entry # 2) and AFFIRMING the

Commissioner’s decision.

Dated this 15th day of January, 2016.

____________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

32Hensley 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.”).

33

SSA record at p. 296.

34

42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(B).

8

Case 1:15-cv-00051-JM Document 12 Filed 01/15/16 Page 8 of 8