Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_24-cv-00122/USCOURTS-ared-4_24-cv-00122-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:0405 Review of HHS Decision

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

MATTHEW J. WHITE PLAINTIFF 

V. Case No. 4:24-CV-00122-BRW-BBM 

CAROLYN COLVIN, Acting Commissioner, 

Social Security Administration1

 DEFENDANT 

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION 

This Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to United 

States District Judge Billy Roy Wilson. You may file written objections to all or part of 

this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the 

factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court 

within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Recommendation. If you do not file objections, 

Judge Wilson may adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing all of the 

evidence in the record. By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of 

fact. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

On November 17, 2020, Plaintiff Matthew J. White (“White”) filed a Title II 

application for a period of disability and disability income benefits. (Tr. at 22). In the 

application, he alleged disability beginning on November 26, 2018, although he 

subsequently amended his onset date to October 8, 2018. Id. The application was denied 

1

 On November 30, 2024, Carolyn Colvin was appointed as Acting Commissioner of the Social 

Security Administration (“the Commissioner”). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Acting 

Commissioner Colvin is automatically substituted as the Defendant. 

Case 4:24-cv-00122-BRW Document 12 Filed 01/17/25 Page 1 of 10
2 

initially and on reconsideration. Id. 

After conducting a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied White’s 

application by written decision, dated December 9, 2022. (Tr. at 22–38). The Appeals 

Council denied White’s request for review on March 20, 2023. (Tr. at 1–2). The ALJ’s 

decision now stands as the final decision of the Commissioner, and White has requested 

judicial review. For the reasons stated below, this Court recommends that the decision of 

the Commissioner be reversed and that the case be remanded to the Commissioner for 

further proceedings. 

II. THE COMMISSIONER’S DECISION 

White was 32 years old on October 8, 2018—the amended alleged onset date of 

disability. (Tr. at 36). He meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act 

through December 31, 2023.2

 (Tr. at 24). 

The ALJ found that White has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since 

October 8, 2018.3 Id. At Step Two, the ALJ determined that White has the following severe 

impairments: mild levoscoliosis of the lumbar spine, migraine headaches, depression, 

panic disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). Id. 

2

 “In order to receive disability insurance benefits, an applicant must establish that he was disabled 

before the expiration of his insured status.” Pyland v. Apfel, 149 F.3d 873, 876 (8th Cir. 1998) (citing 42 

U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423(c)). 

3

 The ALJ followed the required five-step sequence to determine: (1) whether the claimant was 

engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if not, whether the claimant had a severe impairment; (3) if so, 

whether the impairment (or combination of impairments) met or equaled a listed impairment; (4) if not, 

whether the impairment (or combination of impairments) prevented the claimant from performing past 

relevant work; and (5) if so, whether the impairment (or combination of impairments) prevented the 

claimant from performing any other jobs available in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 

C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)–(g), 416.920(a)–(g). 

Case 4:24-cv-00122-BRW Document 12 Filed 01/17/25 Page 2 of 10
3 

At Step Three, the ALJ found that White’s impairments did not meet or equal a 

Listing.4

 (Tr. at 24–26). The ALJ next concluded that White had the residual functional 

capacity (“RFC”) to perform work at the light exertional level, with the following 

restrictions: (1) can occasionally climb ramps and stairs, and can never climb ladders, 

ropes, or scaffolds; (2) can occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl; (3) can 

occasionally reach overhead/work overhead bilaterally; (4) must avoid concentrated 

exposure to extreme cold, wetness, humidity, noise, i.e., no jobs with a noise rating higher 

than “moderate/3” per the Dictionary of Occupation Titles (“DOT”); (5) must avoid 

concentrated exposure to vibration, fumes, odors, dusts, gases, poor ventilation, and 

hazards, i.e., no work at unprotected heights, no work around dangerous unprotected 

moving machinery, and no driving as a part of work; (6) can perform work involving 

occasional incidental interpersonal contact with co-workers and supervisors and that does 

not involve contact with public; (7) can perform work where the complexity of tasks is 

learned and performed by rote, with few variables, and little use of judgment; and (8) can 

perform work where the supervision required is simple, direct, and concrete. (Tr. at 26). 

At Step Four, the ALJ found that White is unable to perform any past relevant work. 

(Tr. at 36). Relying upon the testimony of a Vocational Expert (“VE”), the ALJ determined, 

based on White’s age, education, work experience and RFC, there are jobs in the national 

4

 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt. P, Appendix 1 (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, and 404.1526). 

The Listings define impairments that would prevent an adult, regardless of his age, education, or work 

experience, from performing any gainful activity, not just “substantial gainful activity.” Sullivan v. Zebley,

493 U.S. 521, 532 (1990) (internal citations omitted). That is, if an adult is not actually working and his 

impairment matches or is equivalent to a listed impairment, he is presumed unable to work and is awarded 

benefits without a determination whether he actually can perform his own prior work or other work. Id. 

Case 4:24-cv-00122-BRW Document 12 Filed 01/17/25 Page 3 of 10
4 

economy that White can perform. (Tr. at 37–38). Therefore, the ALJ found that White was 

not disabled from the amended alleged onset date through the date of the decision. Id. 

III. DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

The Court’s function on review is to determine whether the Commissioner’s 

decision is “supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and whether it is 

based on legal error.” Miller v. Colvin, 784 F.3d 472, 477 (8th Cir. 2015); see also 42 

U.S.C. § 405(g). While “substantial evidence” is that which a reasonable mind might accept 

as adequate to support a conclusion, “substantial evidence on the record as a whole” 

requires a court to engage in a more scrutinizing analysis: 

[O]ur review is more than an examination of the record for the existence 

of substantial evidence in support of the Commissioner’s decision, we 

also take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from that 

decision. Reversal is not warranted, however, merely because substantial 

evidence would have supported an opposite decision. 

Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2001) (internal quotations and citations 

omitted). 

 In clarifying the “substantial evidence” standard applicable to review of 

administrative decisions, the Supreme Court has explained: “And whatever the meaning of 

‘substantial’ in other contexts, the threshold for such evidentiary sufficiency is not high. 

Substantial evidence . . . ‘is more than a mere scintilla.’” Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97, 

103 (2019) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 217 (1938)). “It 

means—and means only—‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as 

adequate to support a conclusion.’” Id. 

Case 4:24-cv-00122-BRW Document 12 Filed 01/17/25 Page 4 of 10
5 

B. White’s Arguments on Appeal 

White contends that the evidence supporting the ALJ’s decision is less than 

substantial. He argues specifically that: (1) the ALJ did not fully and fairly develop the 

record, (Doc. 9 at 8–12); (2) the ALJ erred at Step Two, id. at 12–14; (3) the ALJ erred at 

Step Three, id. at 14–18; (4) the ALJ failed to properly evaluate White’s subjective 

complaints, id. at 19–21; (5) the RFC did not fully incorporate White’s limitations or fairly 

consider the medical opinions, id. at 21–24; and (6) the ALJ erred at Step Five, id. at 25. 

The Court agrees that the ALJ’s RFC determination did not adequately account for White’s 

mental impairments/limitations and will direct its attention thereto, as that issue is 

dispositive.5

C. White’s Mental Impairments and the RFC 

White is a combat veteran who suffers from PTSD, depression, and panic attacks 

caused by service-connected traumatic experiences while serving in Afghanistan. (Tr. at 

26–29, 57–65, 578–590, 1702–1709). In fact, he sustained a traumatic brain injury during 

combat and has a 100% unemployable rating with the Veterans’ Administration (“VA”). 

(Tr. at 1039, 1702). According to White, he was fired from two previous jobs for “outburst 

behavior” and threats affecting his superiors and coworkers. (Tr. at 50–51, 60–62). As to 

one of his previous jobs, White testified that: 

I had been talked to a few times in the time I was there for my . . . my 

outbursts. How I talk. I . . . I guess how I talked and approached people. That 

was a big thing of me. I . . . I couldn’t let the military go[,] and I . . . I looked 

5 See Noerper v. Saul, 964 F.3d 738, 741 n.1 (8th Cir. 2020) (“Although our detailed discussion is 

targeted, we have considered the claimant’s arguments and the record as a whole as to all of her impairments 

and their cumulative effect on her limitations.”). 

Case 4:24-cv-00122-BRW Document 12 Filed 01/17/25 Page 5 of 10
6 

at people as civilian[,] and I . . . that was . . . it’s still hard. It’s still hard to 

talk to people in the way that . . . it’s okay in . . . in our society. So, I . . . there 

were a lot of outbursts[,] and I was counseled a couple times. 

(Tr. at 60–61). Similarly, White testified that, after an outburst with VA staff, he was “not 

let back in the door.” (Tr. at 27, 68). He was later diagnosed with intermittent explosive 

disorder. (Tr. at 28). White also testified that he remains virtually a recluse in his home 

and, when he leaves the house, he worries the “worst is going to happen.” (Tr. at 28, 57–

58). 

In 2018, at the beginning of the relevant time period, White spent 52 days in an 

inpatient psychiatric hospital for a suicide attempt by hanging, and he admitted he had 

multiple suicide attempts. (Tr. at 394–413, 744–761). In October 2018, White reported 

aggression towards others and significant depression. (Tr. at 1147). At a VA visit in 

December 2018, White endorsed irritability, outburst, nightmares, and trouble sleeping. 

(Tr. at 588–589). The VA staff psychiatrist wrote in 2018 that White was “high risk” given 

his mental health exacerbations and suicide attempts. (Tr. at 587–589). In December 2018, 

his VA psychologist noted intrusive memories and dreams, persistent negative thoughts, 

reckless and destructive behavior, marked irritability, and sleep disturbances, among other 

things. (Tr. at 582–583). 

A psychological consultative examiner, Dr. Don Ott (“Dr. Ott”), interviewed White 

in March 2021. White reported interrupted sleep, inconsistent appetite, irritability, intrusive 

memories, and hallucinations. (Tr. at 1035–1045). Dr. Ott noted that White “reported no 

major conflict with other people” and “very seldom has social contact outside his home.” 

(Tr. at 1039). While Dr. Ott found that White would have no specific limitations in 

Case 4:24-cv-00122-BRW Document 12 Filed 01/17/25 Page 6 of 10
7 

completing work tasks—stating that “[h]is capacity to cope with the mental demands of 

work is adequate”—Dr. Ott also noted that White is “easily agitated and occasionally gets 

confused.” (Tr. at 1041). Notably, Dr. Ott did not comment on whether White could interact 

in a socially adequate manner at work. Id. Nevertheless, the ALJ found Dr. Ott’s opinion 

to be persuasive. (Tr. at 35). Specifically, the ALJ found Dr. Ott’s opinion to be consistent 

with the opinions of the state-agency consultants, who found that White could only have 

incidental interpersonal contact at work, with direct supervision, (Tr. at 35, 87, 105), even 

though Dr. Ott made no findings with regard to White’s ability to interact with others at 

work.6

A second psychological consultative examiner, Dr. Samuel Hester (“Dr. Hester”), 

evaluated White in August 2022, after the March 8, 2022 hearing before the ALJ. Dr. 

Hester found significant functional limitations. (Tr. at 1702–1711). Considering irritability, 

outbursts, past job performance, PTSD, and suicidal thoughts, the examiner wrote that 

White would have limited capacity to communicate and interact in a socially adequate 

manner. (Tr. at 1708). Dr. Hester also wrote that White was not able to cope with the mental 

demands of tasks and could not complete work tasks in an acceptable time frame. Id. The 

6 For example, both state agency opinions found White moderately limited in his ability to 

“complete a normal workday and workweek without interruptions from psychologically based symptoms 

and to perform at a consistent pace without an unreasonable number and length of rest periods.” (Tr. at 95, 

108). Dr. Ott found no specific limitations in the area of pace. (Tr. at 1041). Additionally, the state agency 

examiners found White moderately limited in his ability to “accept instructions and respond appropriately 

to criticism from supervisors,” (Tr. at 95, 108), but again, Dr. Ott did not comment directly on whether 

White had the capacity to interact with coworkers, supervisors, or the general public in a socially adequate 

manner. (Tr. at 1041). 

Case 4:24-cv-00122-BRW Document 12 Filed 01/17/25 Page 7 of 10
8 

ALJ found this opinion was not persuasive but gave little explanation for that finding.7

(Tr. at 35). The ALJ specifically stated: “The opinions expressed by Dr. Hester are not 

persuasive as they are not consistent with the state agency consultants’ opinions or Dr. 

Ott’s opinion. Further, Dr. Hester’s[] opinions are not supported by the objective findings 

including the objective findings in his report.” (Tr. at 35). 

After considering the medical evidence, including the varying medical opinions, the 

ALJ determined White had the RFC to perform simple work with direct supervision and 

limited social interactions.8

 Particularly, the RFC stated that White could perform work 

involving occasionally incidental interpersonal contact with co-workers and supervisors 

but no contact with the public. (Tr. at 26). The record shows, however, that any interaction 

with people, especially coworkers and supervisors, has proved problematic and potentially 

dangerous for White and those around him. White is a recluse with a real fear that he will 

7

 ALJs are required to analyze whether opinion evidence is persuasive, based on: (1) supportability; 

(2) consistency with the evidence; (3) relationship with the claimant [which includes; (i) length of treatment 

relationship; (ii) frequency of examinations; (iii) purpose of the treatment relationship; (iv) extent of the 

treatment relationship; and (v) examining relationship]; (4) provider specialization; and (5) any other 

important factors. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(c), 416.920c(c). An opinion is “more persuasive if it is 

supported by explanation and relevant objective medical evidence, and it is consistent with other evidence 

in record.” Norwood v. Kijakazi, No. 21-3560, 2022 WL 1740785, at *1 (8th Cir. May 31, 2022) 

(unpublished per curiam) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(c), 416.920c(c)). An ALJ must give good reasons 

for his findings about an opinion’s persuasiveness. Phillips v. Saul, No. 1:19-CV-00034-BD, 2020 WL 

3451519, at *2 (E.D. Ark. June 24, 2020) (citations omitted). 

8

 “A claimant’s RFC represents the most he can do despite the combined effects of all of his 

credible limitations and must be based on all credible evidence.” McCoy v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 605, 614 (8th 

Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). “In determining the claimant’s RFC, the ALJ has a duty to establish, by 

competent medical evidence, the physical and mental activity that the claimant can perform in a work 

setting, after giving appropriate consideration to all of his impairments.” Ostronski v. Chater, 94 F.3d 413, 

418 (8th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). 

Case 4:24-cv-00122-BRW Document 12 Filed 01/17/25 Page 8 of 10
9 

hurt someone due to PTSD.9

 (Tr. at 58–65). Moreover, the record is rife with examples of 

White’s inability to communicate with coworkers, supervisors, medical professionals, 

family members, etc. in a socially acceptable manner. (Tr. at 61, 65, 230–231, 1576). As 

the Eighth Circuit noted, in a case dealing with a Veteran suffering from PTSD, “unlike 

many physical impairments, it is extremely difficult to predict the course of mental illness. 

. . Symptom-free intervals and brief remissions are generally of uncertain duration and 

marked by the impending possibility of relapse.” Andler v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1389, 1393 

(8th Cir. 1996) (citing Poulin v. Bowen, 817 F.2d 865, 875 (D.C. Cir. 1987)). 

Considering the record in its entirety, the Court finds that the ALJ did not properly 

consider all of White’s mental impairments in determining White’s RFC. Markedly, the 

ALJ did not fully incorporate the evidence regarding White’s interpersonal problems; the 

ALJ improperly relied on Dr. Ott’s psychological consultative examination, even though 

Dr. Ott did not opine on White’s “capacity to communicate and interact in a socially 

adequate manner,” (Tr. at 1041); and the ALJ improperly discounted Dr. Hester’s opinion 

that White “had a limited capacity to communicate and interact in a socially adequate 

manner,” (Tr. at 1708). It stands to reason, based on the record in this case, that a job 

involving even a modicum of interpersonal contact would be extremely challenging for 

9

 When discussing why he isolates at home, White testified, “I think the world’s a dangerous place 

and really I think it’s – to me, I think a lot of that I – it’s safer if I just stay here because then I won’t possibly 

have to deal with somebody trying to do something to me or take me out in a way I’d have to defend myself 

in a way I wouldn’t want to.” (Tr. at 63). When asked if he was worried about hurting somebody, White 

testified, “I’m always wondering if someone’s going to . . . the things that have happened in my life, I’m 

always looking over my shoulder. I’m always thinking that – could that be a bomb on him, or could that be 

– are they going to pull a – why are they acting like that? Why is their body movement like that? I don’t 

want to kill any – I don’t want to kill anymore people than I – than I already have.” (Tr. at 65). 

Case 4:24-cv-00122-BRW Document 12 Filed 01/17/25 Page 9 of 10
10 

White. The RFC did not properly reflect or incorporate White’s credible limitations, which 

is reversible error. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the ALJ’s decision is not supported 

by substantial evidence. The ALJ erred in his RFC determination. 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner’s decision be 

REVERSED and the case be REMANDED for further administrative review. 

DATED this 17th day of January, 2025. 

___________________________________ 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 4:24-cv-00122-BRW Document 12 Filed 01/17/25 Page 10 of 10