Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_14-cv-00091/USCOURTS-ared-3_14-cv-00091-0/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

JONESBORO DIVISION

SHAMEKA SCOTT PLAINTIFF

V. NO. 3:14CV91-BD

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner, 

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

ORDER

Oral argument hearing was held on March 19, 2015. Following a review of the

record and arguments presented by counsel, the Court announced its findings of fact and

conclusions of law, affirming the Commissioner’s decision. Based on the record as a

whole, there was sufficient evidence to support the decision that Ms. Scott could perform

a reduced range of light work, in spite of her severe and non-severe impairments.1 An

excerpted transcript of the Court’s findings and conclusions is attached. 

Accordingly, the Complaint is hereby dismissed, with prejudice. 

 So ordered, this 30th day of March, 2015. 

___________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

 The Court considered whether the Commissioner erred in finding that Ms. Scott could

perform a reduced range of light work. The one reference to sedentary work at page four of the

transcript was an unintended misstatement. 

Case 3:14-cv-00091-BD Document 18 Filed 03/30/15 Page 1 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

 JONESBORO DIVISION 

SHAMEKA SCOTT, .

 . Docket No. 3:14-CV-00091-BD

PLAINTIFF, . 

 . Little Rock, Arkansas

VS. . March 19, 2015

 . 9:57 A.M.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,. 

 .

DEFENDANT. .

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TRANSCRIPT OF

EXCERPTED ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

IN ORAL ARGUMENT HEARING BY TELEPHONE

BEFORE THE HONORABLE BETH DEERE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ELECTRONIC COURT RECORDER-OPERATOR: Ms. Suzy Flippen

Transcription Service: Robin Warbritton

Post Office Box 262

Vilonia, AR 72173

(501) 796-6560

PROCEEDINGS RECORDED BY ELECTRONIC SOUND RECORDING.

TRANSCRIPT PRODUCED BY TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE.

Case 3:14-cv-00091-BD Document 18 Filed 03/30/15 Page 2 of 15 Case 3:14-cv-00091-BD Document 17 Filed 03/25/15 Page 1 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff: Mr. Greg Wallace

Bartels Law Firm

Post Office Box 1640

Jonesboro, AR 72403-1640

For the Defendant: Mr. Eric B. Tucker

Social Security Administration

Office of the General Counsel

1301 Young Street

Suite A702

Dallas, TX 75202-5433

Case 3:14-cv-00091-BD Document 18 Filed 03/30/15 Page 3 of 15 Case 3:14-cv-00091-BD Document 17 Filed 03/25/15 Page 2 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

P R O C E E D I N G S

(Call to order of the Court.)

* * *

THE COURT: All right. I have spent considerable

time on the medical records in this case because they are

pretty extensive. And I think that I probably know more about

the case right now than I will at any other time, so I'm

prepared to make findings of fact and conclusion -- and reach

conclusions, applying the law to the facts at this time.

And what I will do is -- we're still trying to figure

out the procedure, the most efficient procedure for doing

this. What I will do is, is make those findings and reach

those conclusions orally here on the record. We will have

that transcribed. And in a week or so, I will docket that as

an order with the transcript attached, along with a judgment.

So, here are my findings in the case of Shameka

Nicole Scott v. Carolyn Colvin, Acting Commissioner of the

Social Security Administration, case number 3:14-CV-91 here in

the Eastern District of Arkansas.

I find that jurisdiction is proper. Ms. Scott has

cleared all procedural hurdles. She filed for disability and

SSI benefits November 7th, 2011, alleging an onset date of

August of 2011. Her applications were denied initially and

upon reconsideration. She asked for a hearing. She actually

had two hearings; one on February 22nd, one on May 10th, 2013,

Case 3:14-cv-00091-BD Document 18 Filed 03/30/15 Page 4 of 15 Case 3:14-cv-00091-BD Document 17 Filed 03/25/15 Page 3 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

before an Administrative Law Judge. A vocational expert

appeared at the second hearing because she alleged not only

physical impairments, but also depression, which would be an

non-exertional impairment.

On June 13th, 2013, the ALJ issued an unfavorable

decision. The appeals counsel denied her request for review. 

Ms. Scott then filed this appeal on April 14, 2014. 

And on April 17th of 2014, the parties consented to the

jurisdiction of this Court.

Ms. Scott, I believe, was 27 years old at the time of

her hearings. She lived with her three children, who were all

minors; a one year old, I think a seven year old, and a nine

year old. 

The standard in this appeal is whether there's legal

error and whether there's substantial evidence to support the

Commissioner's finding that Ms. Scott had the residual

functional capacity to perform a reduced range of sedentary

work in spite of her severe impairments.

The ALJ, at step two, found that Ms. Scott had

several severe impairments; diabetes, diabetic neuropathy,

carpal tunnel syndrome, hypertension, and depression.

In her brief, Ms. Scott alleges that the ALJ erred in

not finding her back pain to be a severe impairment. But

that, of course, is not reversible error because Ms. Scott

cleared the step two hurdle, in that the ALJ did find other

Case 3:14-cv-00091-BD Document 18 Filed 03/30/15 Page 5 of 15 Case 3:14-cv-00091-BD Document 17 Filed 03/25/15 Page 4 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5

severe impairments and did state in his opinion that he

considered all impairments later in the analysis, including

non-severe impairments. So that -- that point is not well

taken.

Her argument also is that the ALJ overestimated her

residual functional capacity because the -- after finding that

her carpal tunnel syndrome was a severe impairment, the

argument is that there were no restrictions in the residual

functional capacity finding to account for her carpal tunnel

syndrome.

She also argues that her diabetic neuropathy was not

adequately considered in the ALJ's finding that she could do a

reduced range of light work because light work includes a -- a

significant amount of walking that would be precluded by her

diabetic neuropathy. Those are her arguments.

Many of the -- the medical records in this case are

rather voluminous, almost running to 900 pages. Many of the

records predate her alleged onset date of August 30, 2011. 

And that includes her diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome,

that I believe was made maybe some time in 2008. Records

indicate that at the -- at the end of 2009, in December of

2009, the doctor that she saw for carpal tunnel syndrome

indicated or prescribed conservative therapy with wrist braces

and pain for the -- for the carpal tunnel syndrome and

indicated that if that was not sufficient, he would refer her

Case 3:14-cv-00091-BD Document 18 Filed 03/30/15 Page 6 of 15 Case 3:14-cv-00091-BD Document 17 Filed 03/25/15 Page 5 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

6

for surgical evaluation. There is no indication that she was

ever referred for a nerve conduction study to confirm the

carpal tunnel -- carpal tunnel syndrome diagnosis or -- or

that she ever had such tests.

Nonetheless, the ALJ did find it to be a severe

impairment, which, of course, by definition, means that it had

more than a minimal effect on her ability to perform work

activities.

When I reviewed the medical records from the time of

her alleged onset date, which would have been August of 2011 

-- again, there are many, many medical records. For example,

and I will run through some of these, many of the records

don't relate to -- to her alleged impairments, but many also

do. Her primary problem, from reviewing the records, appears

to be her uncontrolled diabetes. 

In other words, her blood sugar levels remain high

throughout the relevant period, beginning in August of 2011

when she went to the doctor for back pain and reported a

history of carpal tunnel syndrome and elevated blood sugar

levels. But even as early of August of 2011, the doctor in

that -- at that visit, noted her poor compliance, and

attributed her back problems to be conditioning and muscle

strain, and encouraged her to exercise. He also noted that

she didn't keep appointments relating to colposcopy, which is

a procedure unrelated to any of her alleged impairments.

Case 3:14-cv-00091-BD Document 18 Filed 03/30/15 Page 7 of 15 Case 3:14-cv-00091-BD Document 17 Filed 03/25/15 Page 6 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7

She was also evaluated for physical therapy, didn't

keep that appointment allegedly because she didn't have the

money. But the evidence is -- is unclear about her financial

-- whether finances actually kept her from complying with

medical treatment.

November, she was back at the ER for blood sugar

issues. She was told to follow up with her primary care

physician, but there is no evidence that she did. 

She returned to the doctor in December of 20 -- the

end of December of 2011. I say returned to the doctor, she

returned to the Emergency Room, again for elevated blood

sugar, but she had not ever seen her primary care physician. 

On December 29th of 2011, she did see her primary

care doctor, but admitted that she had been off insulin

September -- since September of that year. 

Again, I'll discuss later about her allegation that

she didn't comply with taking medications because of lack of

financial resources.

February of 2012, two months later, she went to her

primary care doctor for back pain, but her primary care doctor

noted that she was not taking medications for carpal tunnel

syndrome because it made her drowsy, and he advised her to

avoid sitting for long periods and to do more stretching.

She goes back a month later, in March of 2012, again

with allegations of back pain and uncontrolled blood sugar. 

Case 3:14-cv-00091-BD Document 18 Filed 03/30/15 Page 8 of 15 Case 3:14-cv-00091-BD Document 17 Filed 03/25/15 Page 7 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8

Again the next month, April of 2012, again for back pain and

blood sugar level. 

She goes back in May, the next month, back to her

primary care doctor, who noted that she had multiple vague

complaints but no real abnormalities on physical examination. 

The doctor -- oh, Ms. -- I guess Ms. Scott herself noted that

she was not physically active and that most of her -- the

doctor noted that most of the problems were due to poorly

controlled diabetes.

She went back to the doctor two months later, again

with back pain. There was a speculation it might be a

ruptured ovarian cyst, but apparently that was not the case,

because when she went for an ultrasound, that diagnosis was

rejected.

She went back for what was possibly a toenail fungus

later that month, and at that appointment admitted that she

did not follow a diet as recommended and did not take her

medications as prescribed.

She went -- returned to the doctor in November of

2012, again with elevated blood sugar, complaining of

depression, nausea, and pain. She was given an

antidepressant.

Returned a couple of weeks later complaining of pain,

headaches, nausea, neuropathy, pain in her toe, and

depression. 

Case 3:14-cv-00091-BD Document 18 Filed 03/30/15 Page 9 of 15 Case 3:14-cv-00091-BD Document 17 Filed 03/25/15 Page 8 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9

Returned the next month to the ER, where she was

diagnosed with a virus. Later that month, she went to her

primary care doctor with allegations of shoulder pain,

insomnia, shortness of breath. The doctor diagnosed

uncontrolled diabetes, bursitis, and depression.

The next month, she did see a counselor for the

depression, was given a Global Assessment Functioning Score of

40, which is actually quite low. 

She went back the next week, February of 2013, to the

ER, alleging weakness, shoulder plain [sic] -- shoulder pain,

and with elevated blood sugar levels.

She returned to the doctor April 1st, alleging back

and shoulder pain. Went to her primary care doctor. Admitted

not going to physical therapy as prescribed.

She was back at the ER in April of 2013, alleging hip

pain and again uncontrolled blood sugar. The doctor, however,

noted in the ER that she was -- did not appear to be acutely

ill. I think that's when she had pancreatitis. When she

returned to her primary care doctor, admitted not taking her

medications appropriately.

So, I guess I've gone through this to illustrate she

has a consistent history of noncompliance taking her

medications, attending therapy, attending counseling. She is

noncompliant with the diabetic diet. She doesn't follow

exercise recommendations. And the medical records actually

Case 3:14-cv-00091-BD Document 18 Filed 03/30/15 Page 10 of 15 Case 3:14-cv-00091-BD Document 17 Filed 03/25/15 Page 9 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10

are replete with examples of this.

Her reason for not taking her medications, for not

following up with other recommended courses of treatment, is a

lack of money. But the record also shows that she, at least

for many, many periods of time, is on Medicaid, and which

dispels the notion that money kept her from getting her

insulin or other medications that were prescribed. And, in

fact, there is nothing in the record to show that she was ever

refused treatment because of a lack of money. And many, if

not most, of these records are from AHEC, which is a clinic

that is particularly for people with limited financial means. 

So, there is really not sufficient evidence to find

that a lack of funds can account for her -- for her

noncompliance. And, in fact, on one of her hospital visits,

the doctor noted that she was having family members bring in

food that was not on the diabetic diet that she was supposed

to be on.

So, the issue here is, really comes down to one of

credibility and whether the ALJ erred in discounting her

subjective complaints or subjective reports of her limitations

and her pain. And so, the ALJ did credit her subjection

allegations and included -- included some restrictions in her

residual functional capacity to account for her subjective

allegations. And, in fact, gave little weight to the

reviewing doctors based on Ms. Scott's testimony of her

Case 3:14-cv-00091-BD Document 18 Filed 03/30/15 Page 11 of 15 Case 3:14-cv-00091-BD Document 17 Filed 03/25/15 Page 10 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11

subjective complaints.

In addition, as I noted, the ALJ considered both her

severe and non-severe impairments when he limited her to a

reduced level of light work.

The question then is whether the ALJ gave sufficient

reason for discounting the severity of Ms. Scott's complaints.

And I find that he did. He gave good reasons for discounting

her subjective complaints. First, the lack of objective

medical evidence. And while this alone is not enough to

discount subjective complaints, there -- there was never -- as

noted, there was never a nerve conduction study to establish

the severity of her carpal tunnel syndrome, and that's --

that's just one example. Many, many medical records

indicating mild or moderate evidence of -- to support her

subjective complaints.

In addition, the ALJ was -- properly considered her

lack of compliance in taking medications and abiding by her

diet. Also, her activities of daily living. And again,

that's not something that is dispositive, but it is relevant. 

She had three minor children, although she did testify that

her sisters helped her with the one year old, but she also had 

daughters, 7 and 9. She took care of her own personal needs. 

She testified she didn't do much housework, or if she

did housework that it -- that it made her extremely tired. 

But she did pay her own bills, handled her own money. She had

Case 3:14-cv-00091-BD Document 18 Filed 03/30/15 Page 12 of 15 Case 3:14-cv-00091-BD Document 17 Filed 03/25/15 Page 11 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12

-- had achieved a GED certificate and had one year of college,

was able to get along with family and authority figures. She

was able to drive and, in fact, owned her own car. 

The ALJ also considered some inconsistent statements. 

There is some inconsistency, in that one place in the record

she says that she never smoked, and another place where she

was a reformed former smoker, and testimony that she didn't

drink at all versus that she drank one beer a week. 

I'm going to ignore that. I mean, that's -- I don't

think that -- I don't think that that was a significant

inconsistency.

However, I do think there's an inconsistency in

blaming her noncompliance on a lack of funds, but regularly

using the services of AHEC, and the records that show that she

was on Medicaid for a significant period of time, and was

apparently on and off. And there is no explanation. I don't

know why she was on Medicaid at some times and off on others. 

But, clearly, she was on Medicaid for some good

portion of the time. So, it's -- it's inconsistent to say

that that's the reason she didn't take her insulin as

prescribed.

So, all of these are legally sufficient reasons for

discounting Ms. Scott's subjective complaints of her symptoms. 

And certainly, there is evidence supporting the plaintiff's

position, including the carpal tunnel syndrome and the -- the

Case 3:14-cv-00091-BD Document 18 Filed 03/30/15 Page 13 of 15 Case 3:14-cv-00091-BD Document 17 Filed 03/25/15 Page 12 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13

lack of specific restrictions for that, and yet, the -- the

limit to a reduced range of light work was a consideration of

the carpal tunnel, in that there were lifting restrictions and

postural limits included in the residual functional capacity.

I'm not allowed to reverse because there's evidence

that would support the plaintiff's position. I'm obligated to

affirm the Commissioner if there is substantial evidence

viewing the record as a whole. And here, the Commissioner's

decision to deny Ms. Scott benefits is supported by more than

substantial evidence when you look at the record as a whole. 

The Commissioner considered all of Ms. Scott's impairments,

both severe as -- and non-severe, and I find that the ALJ

committed no legal error that could justify reversal.

And those complete my findings and conclusions.

And again, I will have those transcribed and appended

to my order and a judgment to reflect that decision.

Is there anything further, Mr. Wallace?

MR. WALLACE: No, Your Honor. Thank you.

THE COURT: Yes. Well, thank you. Again, you've

done an excellent job for your client.

And, Mr. Tucker, thank you, as well. 

And we're off the record.

MR. TUCKER: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you.

(Adjournment at 10:43 a.m.)

Case 3:14-cv-00091-BD Document 18 Filed 03/30/15 Page 14 of 15 Case 3:14-cv-00091-BD Document 17 Filed 03/25/15 Page 13 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14

ELECTRONIC SOUND RECORDING CERTIFICATION:

I, court approved transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a

correct transcript from the official electronic sound

recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter.

/s/Robin Warbritton March 25, 2015 

Signature of Approved Transcriber Date

Robin Warbritton 

Typed or Printed Name

Case 3:14-cv-00091-BD Document 18 Filed 03/30/15 Page 15 of 15 Case 3:14-cv-00091-BD Document 17 Filed 03/25/15 Page 14 of 14