Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_08-cv-00323/USCOURTS-ared-5_08-cv-00323-0/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

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

KIANNA G. REED Plaintiff

v. 5:08CV00323 BSM/HLJ

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner, Social 

Security Administration, Defendant

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

INSTRUCTIONS

This recommended disposition has been submitted to United States

District Judge Brian S. Miller. The parties may file specific

objections to these findings and recommendations and must provide the

factual or legal basis for each objection. The objections must be

filed with the Clerk no later than eleven (11) days from the date of

the findings and recommendations. A copy must be served on the

opposing party. The District Judge, even in the absence of

objections, may reject these proposed findings and recommendations in

whole or in part.

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

Plaintiff, Kianna G. Reed, has appealed the final decision of

the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration to deny her

claim for Disability Insurance benefits, Childhood Disability

benefits and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), based on disability.

Both parties have submitted appeal briefs and the case is ready for

decision.

The Court's function on review is to determine whether the

Case 5:08-cv-00323-BSM Document 14 Filed 01/28/10 Page 1 of 13
2

Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence on the

record as a whole and free of legal error. Slusser v. Astrue, 557

F.3d 923, 925 (8th Cir. 2009); Long v. Chater, 108 F.3d 185, 187 (8th

Cir. 1997); see also, 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). Substantial

evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept

as adequate to support a conclusion. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S.

389, 401 (1971); Reynolds v. Chater, 82 F.3d 254, 257 (8th Cir.

1996).

 In assessing the substantiality of the evidence, the Court must

consider evidence that detracts from the Commissioner's decision as

well as evidence that supports it; the Court may not, however,

reverse the Commissioner's decision merely because substantial

evidence would have supported an opposite decision. Sultan v.

Barnhart, 368 F.3d 857, 863 (8th Cir. 2004); Woolf v. Shalala, 3 F.3d

1210, 1213 (8th Cir. 1993). 

"Disability" is the "inability to engage in any substantial

gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or

mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which

has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not

less than 12 months." 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A); 1382(a)(3)(A). A

"physical or mental impairment" is "an impairment that results from

anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are

demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory

diagnostic techniques." 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(3); 1382c(a)(3)(D).

Plaintiff alleged that she was limited in her ability to work by

mood disorders, hypertension, bipolar disorder and cannabis

Case 5:08-cv-00323-BSM Document 14 Filed 01/28/10 Page 2 of 13
 1

The Hon. Donald R. Rebsamen.

3

abuse/dependence. (Tr. 39-40) The Commissioner found that she was

not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. The only

issue before this Court is whether the Commissioner's decision that

Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Act is supported

by substantial record evidence.

After conducting an administrative hearing, the Administrative

Law Judge1

 (ALJ) concluded that Plaintiff had not been under a

disability within the meaning of the Social Security Act at any time

through June 28, 2007, the date of his decision. (Tr. 23-24) On

October 29, 2008, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for

a review of the ALJ's decision, making the ALJ's decision the final

decision of the Commissioner. (Tr. 5-7) Plaintiff then filed her

complaint initiating this appeal. (Docket #2)

After consideration of the record as a whole, the Court finds

that the decision of the Commissioner is supported by substantial

evidence.

Plaintiff was 21 years old at the time of the hearing. (Tr.

236) She is a high school graduate and completed one semester of

college. Id. She has past relevant work as a production operator

at a chicken processing plant. (Tr. 17, 23, 59, 235-36)

The ALJ considered Plaintiff's impairments by way of the

required five-step sequential evaluation process. The first step

involves a determination of whether the claimant is involved in

substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i);

416.920(a)(4)(i) (2006). If the claimant is, benefits are denied,

Case 5:08-cv-00323-BSM Document 14 Filed 01/28/10 Page 3 of 13
4

regardless of medical condition, age, education or work experience.

Id. at §§ 404.1520(b); 416.920(b).

Step 2 involves a determination of whether the claimant has an

impairment or combination of impairments which is “severe” and meets

the duration requirement. Id. at §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii);

416.920(a)(4)(ii). If not, benefits are denied. Id. A “severe”

impairment significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic

work activities. Id. at §§ 404.1520(c); 416.920(c).

Step 3 involves a determination of whether the severe

impairment(s) meets or equals a listed impairment. Id.,

§§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii); 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If so, and the duration

requirement is met, benefits are awarded. Id.

If the claimant does not meet or equal a Listing, then a

residual functional capacity assessment is made. Id.,

§§ 404.1520(a)(4); 416.920(a)(4). This residual functional capacity

assessment is utilized at Steps 4 and 5. Id.

Step 4 involves a determination of whether the claimant has

sufficient residual functional capacity to perform past relevant

work. Id., §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv); 416.920(a)(4)(iv). If so,

benefits are denied. Id.

Step 5 involves a determination of whether the claimant is able

to make an adjustment to other work, given claimant's age, education

and work experience. Id., §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v); 416.920(a)(4)(v).

If so, benefits are denied; if not, benefits are awarded. Id.

The ALJ found Plaintiff met the non-disability criteria for

Case 5:08-cv-00323-BSM Document 14 Filed 01/28/10 Page 4 of 13
 2

Plaintiff had drawn surviving child’s benefits on her deceased

father’s record until age 18, August, 2003. (Tr. 17) She alleged

that she became disabled November 15, 2004. Id. The ALJ found that

she was at least 18 and unmarried. Id. If she were disabled before

the age of 22, she would be entitled to Childhood Disability

benefits. Id. Otherwise, the criteria are the same as for

Disability Insurance benefits and SSI.

 3

He noted that she had worked for a little over a month since then,

but deemed that work period an unsuccessful work attempt. (Tr. 17)

5

Childhood Disability benefits.2

 (Tr. 22) He found that Plaintiff had

not engaged in substantial gainful activity since her alleged onset

date.3

 (Tr. 17) He found that Plaintiff had a “severe” impairment,

but that she did not have an impairment or combination of impairments

that met or equaled a Listing. Id. He judged that Plaintiff’s

subjective allegations were not borne out by the overall record and

were not fully credible. (Tr. 21)

The ALJ found that Plaintiff retained the residual functional

capacity for a full range of unskilled sedentary jobs. Id. He

determined she was unable to perform her past relevant work. (Tr.

22) The ALJ correctly noted that, once Plaintiff was determined to

be unable to perform her past relevant work, the burden shifted to

the Commissioner to show a significant number of jobs within the

economy that she could perform, given her residual functional

capacity, age, education and past work. Id. Based on the testimony

of a vocational expert witness in response to a hypothetical

question, the ALJ found that there were a significant number of jobs

in the economy which Plaintiff could perform, notwithstanding her

Case 5:08-cv-00323-BSM Document 14 Filed 01/28/10 Page 5 of 13
 4

The ALJ’s opinion said “escort or driver.” (Tr. 22) The Court

views that as scrivener's error. The vocational expert clearly

testified that the hypothetical individual could perform work as an

escort vehicle driver. (Tr. 248)

 5

Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of Obesity.

6

limitations, for example, small parts assembler or escort driver. 4

Id. Thus, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled. Id.

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by failing to apply Social

Security Ruling 02-01p and in and by failing to find that she met or

equaled Listings 12.03 and/or 12.04. 

First, Plaintiff contends the ALJ failed to apply Social

Security Ruling 02-01p.5

 (Br. 15-17) Plaintiff never alleged any

limitation based on her obesity. (Tr. 106-07, 235-47) In fact, she

testified that it was her normal weight. (Tr. 244) Plaintiff’s

obesity was a longstanding impairment, and she was capable of

performing similar and greater exertional work despite her weight.

See Box v. Shalala, 52 F.3d 168, 171 (8th Cir. 1995)(claimant had 16

year work history despite weight). In April, 2006, she told her

treating psychiatrist that she was doing well and had good energy.

(Tr. 205) They discussed the usefulness of exercise. Id. As early

as October of 2005, he assessed that she was “back to 100%.” (Tr.

169) Her mental status was the best he’d ever seen. Id. Plaintiff

questioned whether she could go back to work and said that she could

get a job with a single phone call; he encouraged her to do so. Id.

In December of 2005, Charles Spellman, Ph.D., evaluated her. (Tr.

180-82) He observed, 

She seemed to be quite normal today and I asked her how

she’s disabled from working as long as she’s on her

Case 5:08-cv-00323-BSM Document 14 Filed 01/28/10 Page 6 of 13
7

medication. Neither she nor her mother could come up with

anything and kept referring to how she was when she doesn’t

take her medications. 

(Tr. 180) 

She told Dr. Spellman she wanted to start school and become a

nurse. (Tr. 182) He noted no physical limitations. Id. She

repeatedly indicated that she wanted to go back to school. (Tr. 207,

212, 214, 218)

The ALJ clearly considered her obesity. (Tr. 17, 18, 21, 22)

In fact, he cited her obesity as limiting her to sedentary work.

(Tr. 22) Social Security Ruling 02-01p does not mandate any special

procedures for evaluating the effects of obesity. The ALJ did not

specifically cite Social Security Ruling 02-01p in his opinion, which

might have been the better practice, but he was not required to do

so. The Court concludes that the ALJ adequately applied that Ruling

in evaluating Plaintiff’s obesity.

Next, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in failing to find

that she met or equaled Listing 12.03 and/or 12.04. (Br. 17-21)

Those Listings read as follows:

12.03 Schizophrenic, Paranoid and Other Psychotic

Disorders: Characterized by the onset of psychotic features

with deterioration from a previous level of functioning.

The required level of severity for these disorders is

met when the requirements in both A and B are satisfied, or

when the requirements in C are satisfied.

A. Medically documented persistence, either continuous

or intermittent, of one or more of the following:

1. Delusions or hallucinations; or

2. Catatonic or other grossly disorganized behavior;

or

3. Incoherence, loosening of associations, illogical

thinking, or poverty of content of speech if associated

with one of the following:

a. Blunt affect; or

b. Flat affect; or

Case 5:08-cv-00323-BSM Document 14 Filed 01/28/10 Page 7 of 13
8

c. Inappropriate affect;

or

4. Emotional withdrawal and/or isolation;

AND

B. Resulting in at least two of the following:

1. Marked restriction of activities of daily living;

or

2. Marked difficulties in maintaining social

functioning; or

3. Marked difficulties in maintaining concentration,

persistence, or pace; or

4. Repeated episodes of decompensation, each of

extended duration;

OR

C. Medically documented history of a chronic

schizophrenic, paranoid, or other psychotic disorder of at

least 2 years' duration that has caused more than a minimal

limitation of ability to do basic work activities, with

symptoms or signs currently attenuated by medication or

psychosocial support, and one of the following:

1. Repeated episodes of decompensation, each of

extended duration; or

2. A residual disease process that has resulted in

such marginal adjustment that even a minimal increase in

mental demands or change in the environment would be

predicted to cause the individual to decompensate; or

3. Current history of 1 or more years' inability to

function outside a highly supportive living arrangement,

with an indication of continued need for such an

arrangement.

20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpart P, App. 1 (2006).

12.04 Affective Disorders: Characterized by a

disturbance of mood, accompanied by a full or partial manic

or depressive syndrome. Mood refers to a prolonged emotion

that colors the whole psychic life; it generally involves

either depression or elation.

The required level of severity for these disorders is

met when the requirements in both A and B are satisfied, or

when the requirements in C are satisfied.

A. Medically documented persistence, either

continuous or intermittent, of one of the following:

1. Depressive syndrome characterized by at least four

of the following:

a. Anhedonia or pervasive loss of interest in almost

all activities; or

b. Appetite disturbance with change in weight; or

c. Sleep disturbance; or

d. Psychomotor agitation or retardation; or

e. Decreased energy; or

f. Feelings of guilt or worthlessness; or

Case 5:08-cv-00323-BSM Document 14 Filed 01/28/10 Page 8 of 13
9

g. Difficulty concentrating or thinking; or

h. Thoughts of suicide; or

i. Hallucinations, delusions or paranoid thinking; or

2. Manic syndrome characterized by at least three of

the following:

a. Hyperactivity; or

b. Pressure of speech; or

c. Flight of ideas; or

d. Inflated self-esteem; or

e. Decreased need for sleep; or

f. Easy distractibility; or

g. Involvement in activities that have a high

probability of painful consequences which are not

recognized; or

h. Hallucinations, delusions or paranoid thinking;

or

3. Bipolar syndrome with a history of episodic

periods manifested by the full symptomatic picture of both

manic and depressive syndromes (and currently characterized

by either or both syndromes);

AND

B. Resulting in at least two of the following:

1. Marked restriction of activities of daily living;

or

2. Marked difficulties in maintaining social

functioning; or

3. Marked difficulties in maintaining concentration,

persistence, or pace; or

4. Repeated episodes of decompensation, each of

extended duration;

OR

C. Medically documented history of a chronic

affective disorder of at least 2 years' duration that has

caused more than a minimal limitation of ability to do

basic work activities, with symptoms or signs currently

attenuated by medication or psychosocial support, and one

of the following:

1. Repeated episodes of decompensation, each of

extended duration; or

2. A residual disease process that has resulted in

such marginal adjustment that even a minimal increase in

mental demands or change in the environment would be

predicted to cause the individual to decompensate; or

3. Current history of 1 or more years' inability to

function outside a highly supportive living arrangement,

with an indication of continued need for such an

arrangement.

20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpart P, App. 1 (2006).

Plaintiff recites some of the limitations incorporated in these

Case 5:08-cv-00323-BSM Document 14 Filed 01/28/10 Page 9 of 13
10

two Listings, but provides no citation to the record in support of

her conclusory assertions that she met these Listings. Such a

failure to cite to the record in support of an argument is waiver of

the argument.

[W]e see no reason to abandon the settled appellate rule

that issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner,

unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation,

are deemed waived. It is not enough merely to mention a

possible argument in the most skeletal way, leaving the

court to do counsel's work, create the ossature for the

argument, and put flesh on its bones. As we recently said

in a closely analogous context: "Judges are not expected to

be mind[]readers. Consequently, a litigant has an

obligation 'to spell out its arguments squarely and

distinctly,' or else forever hold its peace."

United States v. Zannino , 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990), cert.

denied, 494 U.S. 1082 (1992)(citations omitted); accord, Vandenboom

v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 745, 750 (8th Cir. 2005) (rejecting out of hand

conclusory assertion that ALJ failed to consider whether claimant met

Listings because claimant provided no analysis of relevant law or

facts regarding Listings); Perez v. Barnhart, 415 F.3d 457, 462 n.4

(5th Cir. 2005) (argument waived by inadequate briefing); Murrell v.

Shalala, 43 F.3d 1388, 1389 n.2 (10th Cir. 1994) (perfunctory

complaint fails to frame and develop issue sufficiently to invoke

appellate review); Hartmann v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 9 F.3d

1207, 1212 (7th Cir. 1993) (failure to press a point, even if

mentioned, and to support it with proper argument and authority

forfeits it) (Posner, C.J.); SEC v. Thomas, 965 F.2d 825, 827 (10th

Cir. 1992) (it is obligatory that appellant claiming error as to

factual determination provide court with essential references to

record to carry burden of proving error); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d

Case 5:08-cv-00323-BSM Document 14 Filed 01/28/10 Page 10 of 13
 6

An exception is Listing 12.06, Anxiety Related Disorders. A

claimant does not have to meet the Part B criteria if she can

demonstrate a complete inability to function independently outside

the area of one’s home. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 § 12.06C

(2006). Another exception is Listing 12.05A, B or C, Mental

Retardation. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 § 12.05 (2006). 

 7 4. Episodes of decompensation are exacerbations or

temporary increases in symptoms or signs accompanied by a

loss of adaptive functioning, as manifested by difficulties

in performing activities of daily living, maintaining

social relationships, or maintaining concentration,

persistence, or pace. Episodes of decompensation may be

demonstrated by an exacerbation in symptoms or signs that

would ordinarily require increased treatment or a less

stressful situation (or a combination of the two). Episodes

of decompensation may be inferred from medical records

showing significant alteration in medication; or

documentation of the need for a more structured

psychological support system (e.g., hospitalizations,

placement in a halfway house, or a highly structured and

directing household); or other relevant information in the

record about the existence, severity, and duration of the

episode.

The term repeated episodes of decompensation, each of

extended duration in these listings means three episodes

within 1 year, or an average of once every 4 months, each

lasting for at least 2 weeks. If you have experienced more

frequent episodes of shorter duration or less frequent

episodes of longer duration, we must use judgment to

determine if the duration and functional effects of the

episodes are of equal severity and may be used to

11

628, 635 (9th Cir. 1988) (issues raised in brief which are not

supported by argument are deemed abandoned). 

In any event, in order to meet a mental Listing, a claimant must

show that she met the Part B criteria of that Listing.6

 In other

words, she must demonstrate that she had at least two “marked”

restrictions on (1) activities of daily living, (2) maintaining

social functioning and (3) maintaining concentration, persistence or

pace, or that she had one “marked” restriction from the three

characteristics and repeated episodes of decompensation, 7 each of

Case 5:08-cv-00323-BSM Document 14 Filed 01/28/10 Page 11 of 13
substitute for the listed finding in a determination of

equivalence.

20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 § 12.00C (2006). 

 8The List of Exhibits incorrectly identifies him as a DDS physician.

(Tr. 3)

12

extended duration. Greg Wooten, M.D., a psychiatrist who briefly

treated Plaintiff,8

 indicated that Plaintiff had no restriction in

activities of daily living, mild difficulties in maintaining social

functioning, moderate difficulties in maintaining concentration,

persistence or pace and no episodes of decompensation within a

twelve month period, each lasting at least two weeks. (Tr. 224)

Disability Determination Services physicians also concluded that

Plaintiff had less than “marked” limitation of function in the

referenced areas. (Tr. 195) Therefore, Plaintiff did not meet

Listing 12.03 or 12.04.

It is not the task of this Court to review the evidence and make

an independent decision. Neither is it to reverse the decision of

the ALJ because there is evidence in the record which contradicts his

findings. The test is whether there is substantial evidence on the

record as a whole which supports the decision of the ALJ. E.g.,

Mapes v. Chater, 82 F.3d 259, 262 (8th Cir. 1996); Pratt v. Sullivan,

956 F.2d 830, 833 (8th Cir. 1992).

The Court has reviewed the entire record, including the briefs,

the ALJ’s decision, the transcript of the hearing and the medical and

other evidence. There is ample evidence on the record as a whole

that "a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support [the]

conclusion" of the ALJ in this case. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S.

Case 5:08-cv-00323-BSM Document 14 Filed 01/28/10 Page 12 of 13
13

at 401; see also Reutter ex rel. Reutter v. Barnhart, 372 F.3d 946,

950 (8th Cir. 2004). The Commissioner's decision is not based on

legal error.

THEREFORE, the Court hereby affirms the final determination of

the Commissioner and dismisses Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 28th day of January, 2010.

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:08-cv-00323-BSM Document 14 Filed 01/28/10 Page 13 of 13