Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_15-cv-00727/USCOURTS-ared-4_15-cv-00727-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

SHERRI DELOAN MOREHEAD, PLAINTIFF

v. 4:15-cv-00727-JLH-JJV

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner, Social 

Security Administration, DEFENDANT

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge J. Leon

Holmes. Anypartymayserve and file written objections to this recommendation. Objections should

be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the objection is to a

factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your objection. An

original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the United States District

Court Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings and recommendations. The

copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in a waiver

of the right to appeal questions of fact.

If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or

additional evidence, and to have a new hearing for this purpose before either the District Judge or

Magistrate Judge, you must, at the time you file your written objections, include the following:

1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.

2. Why the evidence to be proffered at the new hearing (if such a hearing is granted) was

not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge.

3. The details of any testimony desired to be introduced at the new hearing in the form

1

Case 4:15-cv-00727-JLH Document 13 Filed 08/02/16 Page 1 of 5
of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or other non-testimonial

evidence desired to be introduced at the new hearing.

From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional

evidentiary hearing. Mail your objections and “Statement of Necessity” to:

Clerk, United States District Court

Eastern District of Arkansas

600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325

DISPOSITION

Plaintiff, Sherri Morehead, has appealed the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social

Security Administration to deny her claim for disability insurance benefits. The parties filed their

respective briefs, and the case is ready for a decision. 

This review function is extremely limited. 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 to analyze whether the plaintiff was denied benefits due to legal error. Long v. Chater, 108 F.3d

185, 187 (8th Cir. 1997); see also, 42 U.S.C. §405(g). 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. Woolf v. Shalala, 3 F.3d 1210, 1213 (8th Cir. 1993).

Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing a physical or mental impairment that has lasted

twelve months or more and has prevented her from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. 42

U.S.C. §§ 423 (d)(1)(A); 1382c(3)(A)(B). The only disputed issue in this case is whether Plaintiff

2

Case 4:15-cv-00727-JLH Document 13 Filed 08/02/16 Page 2 of 5
is disabled within the meaning of the Social SecurityAct. Here, this issue turns on the proper weight

and consideration which should be given to Plaintiff’s treating doctor. 

In support of her Complaint, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to give fair consideration to

the medical evidence provided by her treating physician, Columbus Brown, IV, M.D. (Pl.’s Br. 7-8.) 

Plaintiff argues her treating physician’s opinions generally should be accorded substantial weight. 

E.g., Miller v. Shalala, 8 F.3d 611, 613 (8th Cir. 1993); Prince v. Bowen, 894 F.2d 283, 285 (8th Cir.

1990); see Richmond v. Shalala, 23 F.3d 1441, 1443 (8th Cir. 1994) (a treating physician's opinion

concerning the physical limitations of a claimant is entitled to substantial weight). Although this

decision is a close call, I agree with Plaintiff. 

In 2012, Dr. Brown provided a letter stating mainly that Plaintiff was limited in her ability

to sit, stand, and walk for extended periods of time. (Tr. 546.) Dr. Brown’s opinion appears to give

a fair assessment of Plaintiff’s abilities - based on the treatment records - without overstating his

case. His opinion is also consistent with the ALJ’s residual functional capacity assessment that

Plaintiff can perform a reduced range of sedentary work. (Tr. 85.) 

But then in 2014, Dr. Brown stated, “Ms. Morehead is a patient of mine who is being treated

for chronic low back pain and osteoarthritis. Due to these conditions, it is my opinion that she would

not be able to maintain gainful employment due to the severity of her daily pain and the associated

fatigue.” (Tr. 695.) Dr. Brown says the medications Ms. Morehead takes cause fatigue and

drowsiness and “would impair her ability to concentrate.” (Id.) Dr. Brown further states, “If

required to work, she would have to take frequent breaks (at least one an hour) as [sic] would be

significantlyrestricted from repetitive action due to the risk of exacerbating her chronic pains.” (Id.) 

The ALJ gave Dr. Brown’s first opinion - the opinion consistent with the ALJ’s decision -

great weight. (Tr. 88.) He stated, “Because Dr. Brown has a long treating relationship with the

3

Case 4:15-cv-00727-JLH Document 13 Filed 08/02/16 Page 3 of 5
claimant he has more insight into the nature of the claimant’s impairments and the limitations that

they impose. . . .” (Tr. 88.) 

However, the ALJ gave little weight to Dr. Brown’s second opinion. He discounted the

second opinion because treatment notes say Plaintiff appeared to have “fair symptom control” and

“tolerable pain.” (Id.) Additionally, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff “described being able to shop for

groceries for two-hour periods, which contradicts Dr. Brown’s limitation that the claimant must rest

every hour.” (Id.) Lastly, the ALJ says, “. . . Dr. Brown is not specific as to how ‘significantly

restricted’ the claimant is from performing repetitive tasks.” (Id.) 

The ALJ makes fair points and his decision is well reasoned in many respects. I do not take

lightly remanding this case back to the Commissioner.1 For example, the ALJ correctly notes that

Dr. Brown reports “tolerable pains and a satisfactory course with fair, overall, symptom control.” 

(Tr. 696 & 699.) However, Dr. Brown also reports “associated symptoms include: fatigue,

headaches, poor sleep, and weight loss.” (Id.) He also notes that Plaintiff reports pain at level of 7

or 8 out of 10 most days and lists a whole host of medications she is prescribed. (Tr. 696-702.) And

while Plaintiff’s credibility is in dispute, at least one state agency medical consultant appears to

believe her subjective complaints of pain. (Tr. 136-138.) 

With regard to Plaintiff’s ability to grocery shop for two hours, I find it very difficult to give

much weight to this one statement when viewed in its overall context. (Tr. 222-229, 237-245.) 

Moreover, Plaintiff made this statement close in time to Dr. Brown’s first opinion. (Tr. 229, 245,

546.) Dr. Brown’s second opinion was given fifteen months later. Given Plaintiff’s history, as

recited by her medical records, it is reasonable to conclude her condition was worsening as it had

1

The Commissioner’s counsel also makes persuasive arguments, making my decision a close

call. 

4

Case 4:15-cv-00727-JLH Document 13 Filed 08/02/16 Page 4 of 5
done in the past. (Tr. 338.) 

Finally, it is difficult to accept a conclusion that Dr. Brown’s first opinion deserves deference

but not his second. He deserves deference in both instances, Because as the ALJ aptly stated, “Dr.

Brown has a long treating relationship with the claimant he has more insight into the nature of the

claimant’s impairments and the limitations that they impose.” (Tr. 88.) 

So while it is Plaintiff’s burden to prove her disability, I find Ms. Morehead has provided

sufficient basis to call into question the ALJ’s conclusion that she is capable if performing sedentary

work. On remand, the Commissioner should more fully consider the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating

and evaluating doctors. Additionally,theCommissioner should reconsider the conclusions regarding

Plaintiff’s activities of daily living. 

IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that the final decision of the Commissioner be

reversed and this case be remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. This would be a

"sentence four" remand within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501

U.S. 89 (1991).

Dated this 2nd day of August, 2016.

___________________________________

JOE J. VOLPE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Case 4:15-cv-00727-JLH Document 13 Filed 08/02/16 Page 5 of 5