Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_04-cv-00700/USCOURTS-ared-4_04-cv-00700-0/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

WESTERN DIVISION

PATRICIA L. HARVEY Plaintiff

v. 4:04CV00700 JMM/HLJ

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner, Social

Security Administration, Defendant

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

INSTRUCTIONS

This recommended disposition has been submitted to United States

District Judge James M. Moody. The parties may file specific written

objections to these findings and recommendations and must provide the

factual or legal basis for each objection. An original and two

copies of the objections must be filed with the Clerk no later than

eleven (11) 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 findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

DISPOSITION

Plaintiff, Patricia L. Harvey, has appealed the final decision

of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration to deny a

portion of her claim for Disability Insurance benefits. Both parties

have submitted appeal briefs and the case is ready for decision.

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. Long v.

Case 4:04-cv-00700-JMM Document 12 Filed 08/25/05 Page 1 of 7
2

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. Sultan v.

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

1210, 1213 (8th Cir. 1993).

"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. § 423(d)(1)(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. § 423(d)(3).

Plaintiff alleged disability based on reflex sympathetic

dystrophy. (Tr. 88, 148) In her application, filed July 11, 2002,

she alleged her disability began July 5, 2002. At the

reconsideration level of administrative proceedings, the Commissioner

found that she was disabled within the meaning of the Social Security

Case 4:04-cv-00700-JMM Document 12 Filed 08/25/05 Page 2 of 7
 1

The Hon. Mark S. Anderson.

3

Act as of her alleged onset date. (Tr. 53) Plaintiff then requested

a hearing, amending her alleged date of onset to December 26, 2001.

(Tr. 47)

After conducting an administrative hearing, the Administrative

Law Judge1

 (ALJ) concluded that Plaintiff had not been under a

disability within the meaning of the Social Security Act during the

relevant time period, December 26, 2001, through July 4, 2002. (Tr.

13-14) On July 7, 2004, the Appeals Council received and considered

additional evidence and then denied Plaintiff's request for a review

of the ALJ's decision, making the ALJ's decision the final decision

of the Commissioner. (Tr. 6-8) Plaintiff then filed her complaint

initiating this appeal. (Docket #2) The issue of whether Plaintiff

is disabled is moot. Hajek v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 89, 91 (8th Cir.

1994); Williams v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 214, 215 (8th Cir. 1990). The

only issue before this Court is whether the Commissioner's decision

that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Act during

the relevant time period is supported by substantial record evidence.

After consideration of the record as a whole, the Court finds

that the decision of the Commissioner is supported by substantial

evidence.

Plaintiff was 47 years old at the time of the hearing. (Tr. 25)

She is a high school graduate. (Tr. 13, 94) She has past relevant

work as customer service representative. (Tr. 13)

The ALJ considered Plaintiff's impairments by way of the

Case 4:04-cv-00700-JMM Document 12 Filed 08/25/05 Page 3 of 7
4

required five-step sequential evaluation process. The first step

involves a determination of whether the claimant is involved in

substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b)(2004). If the

claimant is, benefits are denied, regardless of medical condition,

age, education or work experience. Id.

Step 2 involves a determination, based solely on the medical

evidence, of whether the claimant has an impairment or combination of

impairments which significantly limits claimant’s ability to perform

basic work activities, a “severe” impairment. Id., § 404.1520(c).

If not, benefits are denied. Id.

Step 3 involves a determination, again based solely on the

medical evidence, of whether the severe impairment(s) meets or equals

a listed impairment which is presumed to be disabling. Id.,

§ 404.1520(d). If so, and the duration requirement is met, benefits

are awarded. Id.

If claimant does not meet or equal a Listing, then a residual

functional capacity assessment is made based on all the relevant

medical and other evidence. Id., § 404.1520(e). This residual

functional capacity assessment is utilized at Steps 4 and 5. Id.

Step 4 involves a determination of whether the claimant has

sufficient residual functional capacity, despite the impairment(s),

to perform the physical and mental demands of past relevant work.

Id., § 404.1520(f). If so, benefits are denied. Id.

Step 5 involves a determination of whether the claimant is able

to make an adjustment to other work, given claimant's age, education

and work experience. Id., § 404.1520(g). If so, benefits are

Case 4:04-cv-00700-JMM Document 12 Filed 08/25/05 Page 4 of 7
5

denied; if not, benefits are awarded. Id.

The ALJ found that Plaintiff had engaged in substantial gainful

activity from December 26, 2001, through July 4, 2002. (Tr. 14)

Consequently, he concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled. Id. He

found that her allegations were not borne out by the overall record

and were not fully credible. Id.

The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s monthly wages exceeded the

presumptive level of substantial gainful activity of $780 pursuant to

20 C.F.R. § 404.1572(b). Plaintiff does not dispute that fact, but

contends that her work activities required the assistance of others,

even on a part-time basis. (Br. 6) The record simply does not

support that argument. Plaintiff plainly testified that no one

assisted her in the performance of her duties. (Tr. 29) 

Plaintiff also suggests that work during the relevant time

period should be considered as an unsuccessful work attempt. (Br. 6-

8) However, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination

that it did not qualify as such. (Tr. 14) It did not for several

reasons, one of which is that there was no significant break

preceding that period of time.

Event That Must Precede a UWA

There must be a significant break in the continuity of a

person's work before he or she can be considered to have

begun a work attempt that later proved unsuccessful. Such

an interruption would occur when, because of the impairment

or the removal of special conditions related to the

impairment that are essential to the further performance of

work, the work was discontinued or was reduced (or limited)

to the non-SGA level. Work is considered to be

"discontinued" if the person (1) was out of work for at

least 30 consecutive days or (2) was forced to change to

another type of work or another employer. (On rare

Case 4:04-cv-00700-JMM Document 12 Filed 08/25/05 Page 5 of 7
6

[o]ccasions a break lasting a few days less than 30 may

satisfy this requirement if the subsequent work episode was

brief and clearly not successful because of the impairment.)

Social Security Ruling 84-25, at 2.

Plaintiff also suggests that the work performed during the

relevant period was under sheltered circumstances. (Br. 8-9) The

ALJ did not address this issue, but it does not appear that it was

raised by Plaintiff below. Plaintiff points to no evidence that

supports her contention that her work was sheltered. Therefore, it

is not properly before the Court.

Sheltered employment is employment provided for

handicapped individuals in a protected environment under an

institutional program. The most common types of sheltered

employment are the following: 

a. Sheltered Workshops. Sheltered workshops engage in

manufacturing, assembly, reconditioning, repair, and other

operations. These may involve direct sales to consumers and

retailers, or the fulfillment of industrial contracts. Some

workshops also furnish services or facilities for medical

care, physical restoration, psychiatric therapy,

recreation, vocational evaluation and training, job

placement, etc. 

b. Hospitals, Veterans' Administration Domiciliaries,

and Long-term Care Institutions. Hospitals, Veterans'

Administration (VA) domiciliaries, and similar institutions

for the care of individuals with long-term impairments,

usually have occupational therapy programs designed to

encourage the use of patients' residual physical and mental

capacities. If the institution furnishes free room and

board to nonworking patients (as, for example, VA

domiciliaries do), then the value of room and board is not

considered pay to patients who work. However, an individual

who works for an institution after he or she has been

discharged from patient status may receive room and board

as part of regular pay. When this occurs, the value of room

and board is considered payment in-kind and is included in

gross earnings. 

c. Homebound Employment. "Homebound employment" refers

to work done at home by individuals under public or

institutional programs designed to provide them with paid

employment. Pay for the work is usually on a piece-rate

basis. The employer delivers raw materials to the

individual's home and picks up finished merchandise.

Case 4:04-cv-00700-JMM Document 12 Filed 08/25/05 Page 6 of 7
7

Sometimes family members may assist the impaired individual

in performing the work. The value of such assistance should

be deducted from wages before the Earnings Guidelines are

applied. 

Social Security Ruling 83-33, at 7.

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 in 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).

There is ample evidence in the record as a whole that "a

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support [the] conclusion"

of the Commissioner in this case. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. at

401; see also Reutter v. Barnhart, 372 F.3d 946, 950 (8th Cir. 2004).

The Commissioner's decision is not based on legal error.

THEREFORE, the Court hereby affirms the final determination of

the Commissioner and dismisses Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 25th day of August, 2005.

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:04-cv-00700-JMM Document 12 Filed 08/25/05 Page 7 of 7