Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_16-cv-00114/USCOURTS-ared-5_16-cv-00114-0/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

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

CURTIS WHITE PLAINTIFF

v. 5:16CV00114-JLH-JJV

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner, 

Social Security Administration, DEFENDANT

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

INSTRUCTIONS

This recommended disposition has been submitted to United States District Judge J. Leon

Holmes. The parties may file specific objections to these findings and recommendations and must

provide the factual or legal basis for each objection. The objections must be filed with the Clerk no

later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings and recommendations. A copy must be

served on the opposing party. The District Judge, even in the absence of objections, may reject these

proposed findings and recommendations in whole or in part.

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

Plaintiff, Curtis White, has appealed the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social

SecurityAdministration to denyhis claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security

income. Both parties have submitted briefs and the case is ready for a decision. After carefully

considering the record as a whole, for the following reasons, Ifind the decision of the Commissioner

is supported by substantial evidence.

A 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 free of legal error. Slusser v. Astrue,

557 F.3d 923, 925 (8th Cir. 2009); Long v. Chater, 108 F.3d 185, 187 (8th Cir. 1997); see also 42

U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). 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, courts must consider evidence that detracts

1

Case 5:16-cv-00114-JLH Document 21 Filed 01/27/17 Page 1 of 4
from the Commissioner’s decision as well as evidence that supports it; a court may not, however,

reverse the Commissioner’s decision merely because substantial evidence would have supported an

opposite decision. Sultan v. Barnhart, 368 F.3d 857, 863 (8th Cir. 2004); Woolf v. Shalala, 3 F.3d

1210, 1213 (8th Cir. 1993). 

Plaintiff was fifty-two years old at the time of the hearing. (Tr. 31.) He testified he is a high

school graduate (Tr. 32), and has past work experience as an industrial cleaner, drill press operator,

and appliance assembler. (Tr. 19.)

Plaintiff alleges he is disabled due to diabetes, a back injury, carpal tunnel syndrome, and

high blood pressure. (Tr. 155-166, 183.) The Administrative Law Judge

1

(ALJ) found Mr. White

had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since January 30, 2013, and had a combination of

severe impairments. (Tr. 14.) However, the ALJ found that Mr. White did not have an impairment

or combination of impairments meeting or equaling an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404,

Subpart P, Appendix 1.2(Tr. 14-16.) According to the ALJ, Mr. White has the residual functional

capacity to do a reduced range of light work. (Tr. 16.) Given his residual functional capacity, the

ALJ determined Plaintiff could no longer perform his past relevant work. (Tr. 19.) However, given

the testimony from the vocational expert, the ALJ concluded other jobs existed in significant

numbers that Plaintiff could perform despite his impairments. (Tr. 20.) Accordingly, the ALJ

determined Mr. White was not disabled. (Tr. 49-52.) 

In support of his Complaint, Plaintiff argues the ALJ incorrectly concluded his cellulitis is 

not a “severe” impairment. (Pl.’s Br. 6-7.) He argues, “Mr. White indicated cellulitis caused pain,

swelling, blisters, hardening then peeling off his right foot. He is unable to walk on his right foot

during an episode, limiting his ability to walk and stand.” (Id. at 6.) 

1The ALJ followed the required sequential analysis 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; and (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. §§ 416.920(a)-(g) and 404.1520(a)-(g).

2

420 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(d), 416.925, and 416.926.

2

Case 5:16-cv-00114-JLH Document 21 Filed 01/27/17 Page 2 of 4
Plaintiff has the burden of proving his impairment is “severe.” See Nguyen v. Chater,

75 F.3d 429, 431 (8th Cir. 1995). To prove a severe impairment, a claimant must show he is

significantly limited in his ability to do basic work activities. Browning v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 817,

821 (8th Cir. 1992). It has “more than a minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to work.” Hudson

v. Bowen, 870 F.2d 1392, 1396 (8th Cir. 1989). 

A claimant’s impairments are not severe when:

(a) Non-severe impairment(s). An impairment or combination of

impairments is not severe if it does not significantly limit your physical or mental

ability to do basic work activities.

(b) Basic work activities. When we talk about basic work activities, we

mean the abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs. Examples of these

include –

(1) Physical functions such as walking, standing, sitting, lifting, pushing,

pulling, reaching, carrying or handling;

(2) Capacities for seeing, hearing, and speaking;

(3) Understanding, carrying out, and remembering simple instructions;

(4) Use of judgment;

(5) Responding appropriately to supervision, co-workers and usual work

situations; and

(6) Dealing with changes in a routine work setting.

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1521 and 416.921.

The determination at step two is based solely on the medical evidence. Riley v. Shalala, 849

F.Supp. 679, 681 (E.D. Ark. 1993), aff’d, 18 F.3d 619 (8th Cir. 1994). Plaintiff was first diagnosed

with cellulitis on January 16, 2013, by Herschel Marcus, M.D. (Tr. 264.) Plaintiff had another

episode on May 1, 2013. (Tr. 335.) But as the Commissioner notes, during Plaintiff’s July 23, 2013,

consultative examination, Christopher L. John, M.D., reported nothing about cellulitis. (Tr. 340-

343.) Furthermore, later that year, Dr. Marcus referred Plaintiff to Manuel Kelley, M.D., who

reported, “Patient reports Right Foot feels better since taking the Bactrim DS. Patient reports no

sores, blisters, or weeping.” (Tr. 360.) There is no medical evidence to support Plaintiff’s argument

that his cellulitis significantly limited his ability to perform work-related activities. Thus, the ALJ

could properly find Mr. White’s cellulitis is not a “severe” impairment. 

And while Plaintiff disagrees, the ALJ could rightly rely on the findings of Sharon Keith,

M.D. (Tr. 58-61), and Ronald Davis, M.D. (Tr. 80-83), who both assessed Plaintiff could perform

light work. I recognize they only reviewed the medical records and did not actually examine

3

Case 5:16-cv-00114-JLH Document 21 Filed 01/27/17 Page 3 of 4
Plaintiff. Yet, there is no reason to discount these opinions and their review of Plaintiff’s medical

records is consistent with the treatment records. 

Undoubtedly, Plaintiff suffers from some degree of pain and limitation. However, the record

fails to support an allegation of complete disability. Disability is the “inability 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 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 1382(a)(3)(A). A “‘physical or mental

impairment’ is an impairment that results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological

abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic

techniques.” 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(D). Plaintiff is still young and appears to be capable of

working.

It is not the task of this Court to review the evidence and make an independent decision. 

Neither is it to reverse the decision of the ALJ because there is evidence in the record which

contradicts his findings. The test is whether there is substantial evidence on the record as a whole

which supports the decision of the ALJ. E.g., Mapes v. Chater, 82 F.3d 259, 262 (8th Cir. 1996);

Pratt v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 830, 833 (8th Cir. 1992). 

I have reviewed the entire record, including the briefs, the ALJ’s decision, the transcript of

the hearing, and the medical and other evidence. There is ample evidence on the record as a whole

that “a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support [the] conclusion” of the ALJ in this

case. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. at 401; see also Reutter ex rel. Reutter v. Barnhart, 372 F.3d

946, 950 (8th Cir. 2004). The Commissioner’s decision is not based on legal error.

IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that the final determination of the Commissioner

be affirmed and Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. 

DATED this 27th day of January, 2017.

____________________________________

JOE J. VOLPE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 5:16-cv-00114-JLH Document 21 Filed 01/27/17 Page 4 of 4