Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_05-cv-06030/USCOURTS-arwd-6_05-cv-06030-0/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 (DIWW)

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

DAVID CRUMPTON PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-6030

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, 

Commissioner, Social 

Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Factual and Procedural Background:

David Crumpton, the plaintiff in this case, has appealed the final decision of the

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (hereinafter "Commissioner") denying his

applications for disability insurance benefits (hereinafter “DIB”), pursuant to §§ 216(i) and 223

of Title II of the Social Security Act (hereinafter "the Act"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i) and 423. 

Both parties have filed appeal briefs (Doc. #7 & 8). In this judicial review, the court

must determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the

Commissioner's decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

The history of the administrative proceedings is contained in the respective appeal

briefs and will not be recounted here except as necessary. However, it should be noted

additional evidence was submitted for consideration by the Appeals Council, after the date of

the administrative hearing and the issuance of the ALJ decision (T. 181-184). It appears that

this evidence includes: a letter from plaintiff’s treating orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Michael

Young; a letter from plaintiff’s attorney, dated February 18, 2005; and an audiological

evaluation. Although the Appeals Council considered the evidence, it denied the plaintiff’s

request for review of the hearing decision (T. 4-7). 

Case 6:05-cv-06030-JRM Document 9 Filed 05/15/06 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

Plaintiff was 44 years of age at the time of the administrative hearing and has a high

school education (T. 188, 190, 105, 114). He has worked in the past as an industrial mechanic

for a golf course (T. 191, 94). He claims disability due to: degenerative disc disease/herniated

intervertebral discs; failed back syndrome; left leg and ankle pain, with numbness; hand pain

and numbness, with decreased grip strength of the right hand; and, hearing loss. He filed his

application on May 1, 2003 (T. 69-72).

 The Social Security Administration denied plaintiff’s applications initially and on

reconsideration. He then requested and received a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge

(hereinafter “ALJ”), which hearing was held on September 1, 2004 (T. 187-212). He alleged an

onset date for disability of April 9, 2003 (T. 187, 190). The ALJ rendered an unfavorable

decision on October 28, 2004 (T. 15-27). As has been noted, by Order entered April 7, 2005,

after receiving and considering additional evidence, the Appeals Council denied the plaintiff’s

Request for Review of the hearing decision, thus making the ALJ’s decision the final decision

of the Commissioner. Plaintiff now seeks judicial review of that decision (Doc. #1).

In his written decision, the ALJ determined that the plaintiff has not engaged in

substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date (T. 25). Further, the ALJ found that the

medical evidence establishes that plaintiff has a severe impairment, namely, lumbar

degenerative disc disease. However, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff does not have an

impairment or combination of impairments listed in, or medically equal to one listed in

Appendix 1, Subpart P, Regulation No. 4. It was determined that plaintiff’s subjective

complaints and alleged nonexertional limitations are not totally credible. The ALJ concluded

that the plaintiff cannot perform his past relevant work (hereinafter “PRW”), but retains the

Case 6:05-cv-06030-JRM Document 9 Filed 05/15/06 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

residual functional capacity (hereinafter “RFC”), to perform light work “except for the inability

to perform more than occasional stooping, crouching or bending, the inability to perform work

where excellent hearing is required, and the limited ability to use his dominant right hand’s

little finger and ring finger but no limitation on usage of thumb, index, and middle fingers.” (T.

26). The ALJ further stated:

Although the claimant’s exertional limitations do not allow him to perform the

full range of light work, using Medical-Vocational Rule 202.22 as a framework

for decision-making, there are a significant number of jobs in the national

economy that he could perform. Examples of such jobs include work as a metal

finish inspector, sander, weld inspector and calibrator. Based upon the

vocational expert testimony, there are over 5.000 such jobs in the regional

economy and over 50,000 such jobs in the national economy. 

(T. 26). Thus, the ALJ determined that the plaintiff was not under a disability at any time

through the date of the decision (T. 26). 

Applicable Law:

The Commissioner's decision denying benefits will be affirmed if it is supported by

substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Clark v. Apfel, 141 F.3d 1253, 1255 (8th

Cir.1998); Ghant v. Bowen, 930 F.2d 633, 637 (8th Cir.1991); 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

"Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance, but enough that a reasonable mind might

accept it as adequate to support [the Commissioner's] decision." Cox v. Apfel, 160 F.3d 1203,

1206-07 (8th Cir.1998). In determining whether existing evidence is substantial, this court

looks at both evidence that supports and evidence that detracts from the Commissioner's

decision. See id. at 1207; see also Warburton v. Apfel, 188 F.3d 1047, 1050 (8th Cir.1999).

In cases involving the submission of supplemental evidence subsequent to the ALJ's

decision, however, the record includes that evidence submitted after the hearing and considered

Case 6:05-cv-06030-JRM Document 9 Filed 05/15/06 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-4-

by the Appeals Council. See Jenkins v. Apfel, 196 F.3d 922, 924 (8th Cir.1999) (citing Riley v.

Shalala, 18 F.3d 619, 622 (8th Cir.1994)). Thus, in situations such as the present, this court's

role is to determine whether the ALJ's decision "is supported by substantial evidence on the

record as a whole, including the new evidence submitted after the determination was made."

Riley v. Shalala, 18 F.3d at 622. In practice, this requires a decision as to how the ALJ would

have weighed the new evidence had it existed at the initial hearing. See id. As the United

States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has often noted, "this [is] a peculiar task for a

reviewing court." Id. Critically, however, this court may not reverse the decision of the ALJ

merely because substantial evidence may allow for a contrary decision. See Woolf v. Shalala, 3

F.3d 1210, 1213 (8th Cir.1993).

An individual is "disabled" under the Act if he is unable "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 twelve months." 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A) and 1382c(a)(3)(A). The

burden of establishing a compensable disability under the Act is initially on the claimant. See

Kerns v. Apfel, 160 F.3d 464, 466 (8th Cir.1998); Riley v. Shalala, 18 F.3d at 621 (quoting

Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n. 5, 107 S.Ct. 2287, 96 L.Ed.2d 119 (1987)). However, 

the submission of the additional evidence to the Appeals Council complicates the analysis; thus,

this court now turns to that additional evidence. 

Discussion:

20 C.F.R. § 404.970(b) provides: 

If new and material evidence is submitted, the Appeals Council shall consider

Case 6:05-cv-06030-JRM Document 9 Filed 05/15/06 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-5-

the additional evidence only where it relates to the period on or before the date

of the administrative law judge hearing decision. The Appeals Council shall

evaluate the entire record including the new and material evidence submitted if it

relates to the period on or before the date of the administrative law judge hearing

decision. 

Thus, the Appeals Council must consider evidence submitted with a request for review

if it is "(a) new, (b) material, and (c) relates to the period on or before the date of the ALJ's

decision." Box v. Shalala, 52 F.3d 168, 171 (8th Cir.1995) (quoting Williams v. Sullivan, 905

F.2d 214, 216-17 (8th Cir.1990)). To be "new," evidence must be more than merely

cumulative of other evidence in the record. See Williams v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d at 216

(concluding that psychiatrist's report was new because it was not merely cumulative but instead

presented more specific findings and conclusions). To be "material," the evidence must be

relevant to claimant's condition for the time period for which benefits were denied. See id.

Thus, to qualify as "material," the additional evidence must not merely detail after-acquired

conditions or post-decision deterioration of a pre-existing condition. See Jones v. Callahan,

122 F.3d 1148, 1154 (8th Cir.1997) (holding immaterial evidence detailing a single incident

occurring after decision and noting proper remedy for post-ALJ deterioration is a new

application); Williams v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d at 216 (finding that despite failure to identify onset

date, doctor's report was material because it provided sufficient basis to conclude it related to

the relevant time). Further, there must be a reasonable likelihood that it would have changed

the determination. Krogmeier v. Barnhart 294 F.3d 1019, 1025 (8th Cir.2002).

In the instant matter, the ALJ stated in his decision:

In summary, whether considered individually or in combination, the claimant

has not provided objective medical evidence of clinical and/or laboratory

findings that meet the criteria of any listed impairment(s) found in Appendix 1. 

Case 6:05-cv-06030-JRM Document 9 Filed 05/15/06 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-6-

Hence the claimant is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security

Act, based solely on the medical evidence. Consideration has been given to the

claimant’s medically determinable impairments under Section 1.04. The

claimant does not have the specified clinical findings and diagnostic laboratory

test results found in the listed impairment. Further, the claimant does not have

medical evidence of the criteria required by other listed impairments in

Appendix 1. Hence, the claimant does not have an objective medical condition

of Listing severity. Further, there is no evidence that any medical source has

stated an opinion that the claimant has a condition equivalent in severity to a

listed impairments. Social Security Ruling 96-6p. The [DDS] determined that

the claimant’s impairments do not meet or equal the criteria of any of the listed

impairments (Exhibit 5F). No treating or examining physician has mentioned

findings equivalent in severity to the criteria of any listed impairment. The

[ALJ] has reviewed the records and finds that the claimant does not have

impairments that meet or equal the requirements of any section of appendix 1,

based upon the medical evidence and the allegations of functional limitations to

the extent found credible, as delineated below. 

(T. 18-19). 

The record contains numerous citations referencing the plaintiff reported/diagnosed: 

left leg/knee/ankle pain (T. 197, 119-122, 183, 153, 206, 88, 108, 131, 129, 128, 127, 149, 158,

159, 160, 167); other areas of pain (T. 197, 200-201, 47, 88, 104, 120, 126, 130, 127, 149, 153,

156); degenerative disc disease/herniated intervertebral discs (T. 197, 134, 127, 162-163, 153-

156, 150-151, 193, 201, 125, 128, 131, 130, 129, 149, 159, 160-163, 167); decreased grip/left

leg and right hand numbness (T. 201, 47, 77, 88, 104, 119, 125, 130, 156, 167). 

As noted, the additional evidence submitted to the Appeals Council includes a letter

authored by Dr. Michael Young on December 14, 2004, approximately six (6) weeks after the

hearing decision was rendered. Clearly, because that letter was not in existence at the time the

ALJ issued his written decision, he was not able to take the letter’s information into

consideration.

Dr. Young’s letter, however, is consistent with his earlier progress reports (T. 148-163),

Case 6:05-cv-06030-JRM Document 9 Filed 05/15/06 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-7-

and with Dr. Wilbur Giles’ opinion, to whom Dr. Young plaintiff (T. 123-126). Dr. Young

states in the December 2004 letter:

I had the chance to visit with David Crumpton on December 10,2004. I know he

is in the process of applying for Social Security Disability. As you know, he has

had three previous lumbar spinal surgeries. Unfortunately, he does have residual

nerve root damage on the left side. He has chronic left leg pain. He is greatly

limited in his activities of daily living secondary to his lumbar spine and this

nerve root damage. 

In his situation, we could proceed with a significant work up to repeat all of these

studies, but I really feel that this is unnecessary. He tried to return to work and

was unable over time to do what needed to be done and apparently his work let

him go. I visited with him recently and he was almost too tough for his own

good. Part of the reason I haven’t seen him is that he has been trying to tolerate

the pain and trying to perform duties at work and go on about his life. 

Unfortunately he has reached a point where he can no longer do this. 

I certainly feel he gave it a good effort and I would certainly support him in his

pursuit of Social Security Disability. I do not feel that further surgical

intervention would be of benefit to him. He does have chronic leg pain,

limitation of motion of his back and limitation of his activities. I think he has

proven to us with time that he is not going to be able to be a significant part of the

work force.

I will provide whatever information is necessary. Please contact me if there are

questions. 

(T. 183). 

In addition, Dr. Giles diagnosed “failed back with lumbar radicular syndrome” on the two

(2) occasions he examined the plaintiff in August of 2002 (T. 123, 126). Dr. Giles

recommended:

I have recommended to him that we give him some high-dose steroids for seven

days in a different dosage than he has previously had to see if it makes any

difference as concerns his radicular discomfort, and I have set him up for an EMG

and nerve conduction study of the left leg to see if he has any permanent damage

within the nerve root, as far as denervation, and I will seek him back in a week

and make further recommendations. It may well be that chronic pain

Case 6:05-cv-06030-JRM Document 9 Filed 05/15/06 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

 The ALJ states in his decision that “[m]edication side effects are not alleged to create 1

any limitations nor established by the medical records.” This statement is belied by the record

(T. 200, 104, 120, 123, 168). 

-8-

management would be of some benefit to him. I think it is highly unlikely under

the present circumstances that any type of fusion would alleviate his discomfort.

(T. 126).

On August 21, 2002, Dr. Giles noted that the steroids and therapy had been ineffective. 

In fact, the steroids caused “all types of bizarre symptoms” and were discontinued. Dr. Giles 1

reported that the EMG and nerve conduction studies were “within normal limits. ...do not show

any permanent nerve damage and shows no irritability, nor does it show any evidence of muscle

dysfunction.” Thus, Dr. Giles again diagnosed failed back with lumbar radicular symptoms,

most likely inflammatory, and opined that “[t]here is nothing that I can help him with from a

neurosurgical standpoint here.” (T. 123-126). 

 However, the evidence of left leg and back pain and numbness and other limitations, is

replete throughout the record. Additional evidence submitted to, and considered by the Appeals

Council, contains a clear opinion by the plaintiff’s treating orthopedic surgeon, who treated the

plaintiff for a number of years (T. 183). This evidence, which the undersigned must consider, in

conjunction with evidence which was before the ALJ when he rendered his decision causes this

Court to find that this matter should be remanded. 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by

substantial evidence of record, which now includes the evidence submitted to the Appeals

Council. Further, the undersigned finds that there is a reasonable likelihood that this new and

material evidence would have changed the ALJ’s decision, particularly with respect to the 

Case 6:05-cv-06030-JRM Document 9 Filed 05/15/06 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-9-

hypothetical question posed to the VE and the ALJ’s RFC determination.

Conclusion:

Accordingly, the decision of the ALJ, denying benefits to the plaintiff, is not supported

by substantial evidence, and should be reversed. This is especially true in light of the additional

evidence submitted to the Appeals Council, which was not before the ALJ when he rendered his

decision. This matter should be remanded to the Commissioner, for further consideration of the

plaintiff’s residual functional capacity

ENTERED this 15 day of May, 2006. th 

/s/ Bobby E. Shepherd 

HONORABLE BOBBY E. SHEPHERD 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:05-cv-06030-JRM Document 9 Filed 05/15/06 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: <pageID>