Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_14-cv-00365/USCOURTS-ared-5_14-cv-00365-0/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

JERRY COURTNEY PLAINTIFF

v. No. 5:14–CV–365-KGB–BD

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner,

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

Recommended Disposition

Instructions

The following recommended disposition was prepared for U.S. District Judge

Kristine G. Baker. 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 Baker 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 5:14-cv-00365-KGB Document 15 Filed 08/25/15 Page 1 of 13
Reasoning for Recommended Disposition

Jerry Y. Courtney seeks judicial review of the denial of his second application for

social security disability benefits.3

 Between applications, Mr. Courtney worked on a

production line for Tyson Poultry.4 He claims he has been disabled since he lost his job

on April 1, 2011.5

 He bases disability on Bell’s palsy, high blood pressure, back

problems, vision problems, and headaches.6

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

Commissioner’s ALJ identified the following conditions as severe impairments:

(1) hypertension, amendable to medical control with

treatment compliance;

(2) history of Bell’s palsy on the right with mild left hemifacial spasm with tearing and irritation of the right eye;

(3) sleep apnea, amendable to medical control with

treatment compliance;

(4) mild degenerative changes in the lumbar spine without

canal spinal stenosis or nerve cord/root abnormality;

3

SSA record at p. 176 (applying on Apr. 14, 2011, alleging disability beginning

Apr. 1, 2011). In his first application, Mr. Courtney alleged he became disabled on

December 31, 2008; that application was denied on March 30, 2009. Id. at pp. 180 & 631.

4

Id. at p. 199.

5

Id. at p. 198 (reporting that he was terminated on April 1, 2011).

6

Id.

2

Case 5:14-cv-00365-KGB Document 15 Filed 08/25/15 Page 2 of 13
(5) tension headaches;

(6) alcohol dependence with depression/adjustment disorder

with mixed emotions (substance induced mood disorder);

(7) intermittent explosive disorder; and

(8) personality disorder.

7

The ALJ determined that Mr. Courtney could perform unskilled work with the

following limitations: (1) incidental interpersonal contact; (2) tasks learned and

performed by rote with few variables; (3) little individual judgment required; and 

(4) simple, direct, concrete supervision.8 Because a vocational expert testified that Mr.

Courtney’s former work meets these limitations,9

 the ALJ determined Mr. Courtney

could do his past work 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. Courtney filed this case to

7

Id. at p. 18.

8

Id. at p. 20.

9

Id. at pp. 92-93.

10

Id. at p. 35.

11

Id. at p. 1.

12

See Anderson v. Sullivan, 959 F.2d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he Social Security

Act precludes general federal subject matter jurisdiction until administrative remedies

have been exhausted”).

3

Case 5:14-cv-00365-KGB Document 15 Filed 08/25/15 Page 3 of 13
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 substantial evidence supports the decision and why

the ALJ made no legal error.

Mr. Courtney’s allegations. Mr. Courtney generally challenges the ALJ’s

decision, but focuses on the identification of severe impairments and the consideration

of medical opinion evidence. He argues that the medical evidence supports more

limitation than the ALJ found. For these reasons, he says, substantial evidence does not

support the decision.15

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

reasonable mind must accept the evidence as adequate to show that Mr. Courtney could

do his past work.16 A claimant who can do his past work is not disabled under social

13Docket entry # 1.

14

See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (district court must determine whether Commissioner’s

findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the Commissioner

complied 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.”).

15Docket entry # 12.

16Britton v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 328, 330 (8th Cir. 1990) (“Substantial evidence

‘means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to

support a conclusion.’”).

4

Case 5:14-cv-00365-KGB Document 15 Filed 08/25/15 Page 4 of 13
security law.17

 The claimant bears the burden of proving he can no longer do his past

work.18

 Mr. Courtney did not meet this burden for the following reasons:

1. Mr. Courtney undermined his credibility. Allegations play an

important role in determining whether a claimant is disabled. An ALJ

must evaluate the claimant’s credibility before determining his ability to

work.19 Mr. Courtney says he became disabled the day he was

terminated, but he was terminated for reasons unrelated to his reasons for

disability.20 Claiming to be disabled on the day he was terminated is

inconsistent with why he lost his job.

After losing his job, Mr. Courtney sought employment, unemployment

benefits, and social security disability benefits.21 Seeking employment and

seeking unemployment benefits are inconsistent with being disabled,

because both efforts require the ability to work.22 The ALJ properly relied

17

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4) & 416.920(a)(4) (“If you can still do your past

relevant work, we will find that you are not disabled.”).

18Baumgarten v. Chater, 75 F.3d 366, 368 (8th Cir. 1996); Locher v. Sullivan, 968 F.2d

725, 727 (8th Cir. 1992).

19Ellis v. Barnhart, 392 F.3d 988, 995-96 (8th Cir. 2005).

20

SSA record at pp. 66, 198, 305 & 602 (terminated for having alcohol on

premises).

21

Id. at pp. 227, 508, 533, 549, 593-94, 596 & 852. Mr. Courtney also pursued rehire

— another inconsistency — but the unfavorable decision does not mention that effort. 

Id. at pp. 596 & 599.

22ARK. CODE ANN. § 11-10-507(3) (setting eligibility conditions for unemployment

benefits and including that the worker “is unemployed, is physically and mentally able

to perform suitable work, and is available for such work”); Jernigan v. Sullivan, 948 F.2d

1070, 1074 (8th Cir. 1991) (“A claimant may admit an ability to work by applying for

unemployment compensation benefits because such an applicant must hold himself out

as available, willing and able to work.”).

5

Case 5:14-cv-00365-KGB Document 15 Filed 08/25/15 Page 5 of 13
on the inconsistencies to discount Mr. Courtney’s credibility.23

 The

inconsistencies suggest other motivation for seeking disability benefits. 

2. Treatment records show no disabling physical symptoms. A

claimant’s allegations are not enough to prove he is disabled; the claimant

must prove disability with medical evidence.24

 The medical evidence

shows Mr. Courtney’s physical impairments existed before he lost his job

— he worked with the symptoms underlying his claim. After he lost his

job, he sought more frequent medical treatment, but treatment records

show no disabling symptoms.

A possible hairline fracture of the right kneecap may have interfered with

walking and standing for a short period of time,25

 but diagnostic imaging

23Partee v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 860, 865 (8th Cir. 2011) (“The ALJ may discredit a

claimant based on inconsistencies in the evidence.”); Dunahoo v. Apfel, 241 F.3d 1033,

1038 (8th Cir. 2001) (“The ALJ may discount complaints of pain if they are inconsistent

with the evidence as a whole.”).

24

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.

§§ 404.1508 & 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. §§ 404.1529 & 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 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.”).

25

SSA record at pp. 462-63 (diagnostic imaging of right knee showing “suggestion

of possible hairline fracture,” tissue swelling, and Baker’s cyst).

6

Case 5:14-cv-00365-KGB Document 15 Filed 08/25/15 Page 6 of 13
shows nothing interfering with functioning for 12 continuous months.26

Diagnostic imaging of the lumbar spine shows mild degenerative

changes,27

 but the descriptor “mild” suggests no disabling symptoms.

Mr. Courtney complained about disabling headaches, but a neurologist

told him that his headaches would not improve so long as he took daily

narcotic pain medicine and recommended narcotic detox.28 Mr. Courtney

insisted narcotic pain medication — and alcohol — helped his headaches.29

Continuing to use narcotics and alcohol indicate the headaches were not

disabling.

Bell’s palsy first surfaced during childhood and resurfaced during

employment with Tyson.30 The condition resolved, but left some mild

facial spasm, eye irritation and tearing.31 An ophthalmologist prescribed

26

See 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A) (specifying duration requirement for disability

benefits); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1505(a) (“The law defines disability as the inability to do 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.”).

27

SSA record at p. 461 (diagnostic imaging of lumbar spine showing annular tear,

mild diffuse disk bulge, mild bilateral neural foraminal narrowing at L5/S1; mild diffuse

disk bulge and mild bilateral neural foraminal narrowing at L4/5; no significant spinal

stenosis; no cord or nerve root signal abnormality).

28

Id. at p. 298 (“minimize use of Hydrocodone and narcotics”) & p. 300 (“I am not

expecting his [headaches[ to improve as long as he is on daily hydrocodone.”).

29

Id. at pp. 310 & 602.

30

Id. at p. 296 (“He had first episode of Right facial palsy in childhood and the

second episode in Jan09.”).

31

Id. at pp. 310-11 (right facial nerve palsy but with fairly good strength in muscle

that controls use of mouth and lips; incomplete blink; left mild hemi-facial spasm) &

p. 816 (right facial nerve palsy, can close eyelids but has incomplete blink; mild stable

left hemi-facial spasm).

7

Case 5:14-cv-00365-KGB Document 15 Filed 08/25/15 Page 7 of 13
treatment for the latter symptoms. Mr. Courtney’s blood pressure

fluctuated, but improved with treatment and compliance.

The ALJ properly concluded that Mr. Courtney’s physical impairments

were amenable to control with treatment. He complains about that aspect

of the decision, but medical recommendations show his conditions could

be controlled with treatment.32 “An impairment which can be controlled

by treatment or medication is not considered disabling.”33

3. Treatment records show non-compliance. A claimant who does not

comply with prescribed treatment without good reason is barred from

receiving disability benefits.34 Doctors documented non-compliance many

times.35

 Medical providers emphasized the need for medication

compliance, proper sleep hygiene, and abstinence from alcohol to manage

hypertension, but with little effect until non-compliance affected the

kidneys.36 The ALJ properly relied on non-compliance.

32

Id. at p. 517 (improved blood pressure since increasing Apresoline), p. 668

(“Since [blood pressure] better controlled will continue the plan with tapering

clonidine.”) & p. 778 (sleep apnea responded well to continuous positive airway

pressure, but he has not yet used to it).

33Estes v. Barnhart, 275 F.3d 722, 725 (8th Cir. 2002).

34Tome v. Schweiker, 724 F.2d 711, 713-14 (8th Cir. 1984). See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1530

& 416.930.

35

See, e.g., SSA record at p. 363 (missed appointment with neurology), p. 536

(taking more pain medication than prescribed), p. 588 (twice missed sleep study), p. 684

(warned about risk of stroke due to elevated blood pressure, but he refused admission),

p. 709 (narcotic pain medication suspended due to positive drug screen), p. 741 (noncompliance with low sodium diet and continuous positive airway pressure makes it

hard to control blood pressure) & p. 831 (not compliant with continuous positive airway

pressure).

36

Id. at pp. 81-82 (explaining that he got scared because he did not want to go

dialysis), pp. 844 & 846 (hospital admission for uncontrolled blood pressure and chronic

kidney disease) & p. 678 (“says is taking his [blood pressure] medications properly”).

8

Case 5:14-cv-00365-KGB Document 15 Filed 08/25/15 Page 8 of 13
4. Alcohol contributed to mental symptoms. Prior to losing his job,

Mr. Courtney saw a mental health specialist for depression. The specialist

diagnosed depression and alcohol abuse.37 The latter diagnosis is

important because a claimant is not eligible for disability benefits if alcohol

abuse is a contributing factor to disability.38

The mental specialist prescribed psychotropic medications, cognitive

behavioral therapy, and abstaining from alcohol.39

 Mr. Courtney stopped

taking prescribed medication, did not attend cognitive behavioral therapy,

and continued to drink alcohol. After losing his job, he drank more.40 He

asked for a new mental health provider and reported that he no longer

used alcohol, but treatment records show that was not true.

The new mental health provider, a psychiatrist, made recommendations

similar to the original mental health specialist’s, but Mr. Courtney did not

follow the recommendations.

The psychiatrist identified several psycho-social stressors impairing

Mr. Courtney’s functioning: job loss, lack of income, financial uncertainty,

37

Id. at p. 363.

38

42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(C) (“An individual shall not be considered to be disabled

... if alcoholism ... would ... be a contributing factor material to the Commissioner’s

determination that the individual is disabled.”); Rehder v. Apfel 205 F.3d 1056, 1060 (8th

Cir. 2000) (“If the claimant’s remaining limitations would not be disabling, the

claimant’s alcoholism ... is a contributing factor material to a determination of disability

and benefits will be denied.”).

39

SSA record at p. 587 (refuses to take responsibility for past behaviors, denies

problems with alcohol, non-compliant with medication).

40

Id. at p. 602 (drinking every day since being fired).

9

Case 5:14-cv-00365-KGB Document 15 Filed 08/25/15 Page 9 of 13
legal issues, relationship issues, and chronic pain.41

 These stressors

suggest other motivation for seeking disability benefits.

During the hearing, the psychiatrist indicated that Mr. Courtney could

perform simple routine tasks with incidental interpersonal contact if he

stopped drinking. That is the type of work the ALJ required. 

5. The ALJ made no step two error. At step two of the disabilitydetermination process, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a

severe impairment.42 Mr. Courtney says the identified impairments are

inconsistent with medical diagnoses, but even if this is true, a diagnosis

does not establish a severe impairment. To be severe, an impairment must

significantly limit the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic

work activities.43 A diagnosis does not make that showing.

Moreover, the purpose of step two is to weed out claimants whose

abilities to work are not significantly limited.44 If the claimant shows he

has a severe impairment, the process proceeds to the next step. If the

claimant meets his step-two burden, there can be no reversible error

where the record shows the ALJ considered all of the medical evidence

and all of the claimant’s impairments. The record in this case shows the

41

Id. at p. 514 (fighting with wife), p. 533 (hasn’t been able to find work), p. 549

(on parole with little hope of finding work), p. 596 (charged with assaulting police

detective and driving recklessly), p. 599 (twice convicted for selling drugs), p. 594

(denied social security disability and unemployment benefits), p. 732 (charged with

assaulting wife) &. 736 (wife left him). 

42

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) & 416.920(a)(4)(ii). 

43See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) & 416.920(c) (explaining that claimant is not

disabled unless he has “impairment or combination of impairments which significantly

limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities”).

44Bowen 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).

10

Case 5:14-cv-00365-KGB Document 15 Filed 08/25/15 Page 10 of 13
ALJ considered all of the medical evidence and all of Mr. Courtney’s

impairments.

6. The ALJ properly resolved conflicts in medical evidence. When

medical evidence conflicts, the ALJ must resolve the conflict before

determining the claimant’s ability to work.45

 In this case, medical opinion

evidence conflicts. The ALJ resolved the conflict by giving the

psychiatrist’s testimony46 and agency medical consultant’s opinion47

greater evidentiary weight than the examining psychologist’s report

48

 and

the primary care physician (PCP) written statement.49 The ALJ provided

good reasons for resolving the conflict in that manner.

50

 Treatment notes

45Dipple v. Astrue, 601 F.3d 833, 836 (8th Cir. 2010) (“It was the ALJ’s task to

resolve the differences between these consultative evaluations in the light of the

objective evidence.”); Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1219 (8th Cir. 2001) (“It is the

ALJ’s function to resolve conflicts among the opinions of various treating and

examining physicians. ... The ALJ may reject the conclusions of any medical expert,

whether hired by the claimant or the government, if they are inconsistent with the

record as a whole.”).

46

SSA record at pp. 48-62.

47

Id. at pp. 385-401 & 632. 

48

Id. at pp. 377-79.

49

Id. at p. 635.

50

Id. at p. 33-34 (psychiatrist’s testimony supported by other substantial evidence;

examining psychologist unaware of numerous inconsistencies; PCP set out subjective

complaints without addressing history of substantial noncompliance and failed to

respond to subpoena).

11

Case 5:14-cv-00365-KGB Document 15 Filed 08/25/15 Page 11 of 13
do not support the PCP written statement.51

 The examining psychologist

was unaware of the numerous inconsistencies reflected in the record.52

7. Vocational evidence supports the decision. The medical evidence

shows no impairment interfering with physical functioning, but it

indicates circumstances and psycho-social stressors that would impair

mental functioning. The ALJ’s limitations address the concrete 

consequences of that impairment.53 The ALJ asked a vocational expert

whether a hypothetical person with the same impairment could do any of

Mr. Courtney’s past work. The vocational expert identified two past jobs:

the poultry production line work and construction worker II.54

8. The increase in veterans benefits does not change the result. 

Mr. Courtney says the ALJ did not consider his increase in veterans

disability benefits, but even though he did not mention the increase in the

decision, the ALJ admitted the award letter during the hearing.55 The

increase was based on chronic headaches. In any event, the award letter

stated that “there is a likelihood of improvement.”56

No harm flowed from the omission. The ALJ considered the medical

evidence underlying the increase. The evidence shows that a neurologist

prescribed treatment to improve headaches, but Mr. Courtney did not

51Compare id. at p. 635 (PCP letter reporting regular daytime sleepiness despite

continuous positive airway pressure) with id. at p. 741 (contemporaneous treatment note

stating that Mr. Courtney is not compliant with continuous positive airway pressure).

52Compare id. at p. 377 (reporting that Bell’s Palsy has come and gone in the past)

with id. at 296 (reporting first episode during childhood and second episode in January

2009 when he worked for Tyson).

53

Lacroix v. Barnhart, 465 F.3d 881, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2006) (hypothetical question

should capture the concrete consequences of claimant’s impairments).

54

SSA record at pp. 92-93.

55

Id. at p. 44.

56

Id. at p. 862.

12

Case 5:14-cv-00365-KGB Document 15 Filed 08/25/15 Page 12 of 13
comply. The VA rules resolve doubts about disability in favor of the

veteran,57 but an ALJ must evaluate the claimant’s credibility and rely on

competent medical evidence.58

 The ALJ evaluated credibility using the

required two-step process and the required factors,59 and properly

determined Mr. Courtney over-stated his limitation. 

Conclusion and Recommendation

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. The ALJ made no legal error. 

For these reasons, the undersigned magistrate judge recommends DENYING Mr.

Courtney’s request for relief (docket entry # 2) and AFFIRMING the Commissioner’s

decision.

Dated this 25th day of August, 2015.

____________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

57

38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.2, 4.3.

58Ellis v. Barnhart, 392 F.3d 988, 995-96 (8th Cir. 2005); Ostronski v. Chater, 94 F.3d

413, 418 (8th Cir. 1996); Nelson v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 363, 366 (8th Cir. 1992).

59

SSR 96-7p, Pol’y Interpretation Ruling Titles II & XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in

Disability Claims: Assessing the Credibility of an Individual’s Statements.

13

Case 5:14-cv-00365-KGB Document 15 Filed 08/25/15 Page 13 of 13