Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_24-cv-05111/USCOURTS-arwd-5_24-cv-05111-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:0405g Review of HHS Decision (RSI)

---

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

 

 

CARL ARMON PERKINS PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL NO. 24-5111 

MARTIN J. O’MALLEY, Commissioner

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, Carl Armon Perkins, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking 

judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration 

(Commissioner) denying his claims for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits 

(DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI) benefits under the provisions of Titles II and XVI 

of the Social Security Act (Act). In this judicial review, the Court must determine whether there 

is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the Commissioner's decision. See

42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

I. Procedural Background:

Plaintiff protectively filed his current applications for DIB and SSI on November 9, 2020, 

alleging an inability to work since December 1, 2014, due to a stroke, high blood pressure, shortand long-term memory loss, vertebral problems in the neck and dementia. (Tr. 75, 124, 250, 257, 

265, 339). For DIB purposes, Plaintiff maintained insured status through June 30, 2022. (Tr. 50, 

285). An administrative telephonic hearing was held on April 11, 2023, at which Plaintiff appeared 

with counsel and testified. (Tr. 48-65). 

Case 5:24-cv-05111-TLB Document 15 Filed 12/04/24 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>
2 

By written decision dated July 26, 2023, the ALJ found that during the relevant time period, 

Plaintiff had an impairment or combination of impairments that were severe. (Tr. 18). Specifically, 

the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: a spine disorder, coronary 

arteriosclerosis, a neurocognitive disorder, bipolar disorder, somatic symptom disorder, and 

attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. However, after reviewing all of the evidence presented, 

the ALJ determined that Plaintiff’s impairments did not meet or equal the level of severity of any 

impairment listed in the Listing of Impairments found in Appendix I, Subpart P, Regulation No. 

4. (Tr. 18). The ALJ found Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to: 

[P]erform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except that 

the claimant is limited to occasionally climbing, balancing, crawling, kneeling, 

stooping, and crouching; frequently reaching overhead bilaterally; understanding, 

remembering, and carrying out simple instructions; responding to supervision that 

is simple, direct, and concrete; and having occasional interaction with supervisors, 

co-workers, and the public. 

(Tr. 19). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ determined Plaintiff could perform work as 

a cloth folder, a shipping weigher, and a garment sorter. (Tr. 38). 

Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council, who 

denied that request on March 21, 2024. (Tr. 1-7). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this action. (ECF 

No. 2). Both parties have filed appeal briefs, and the case is before the undersigned for report and 

recommendation. (ECF Nos. 11, 13, 14).

II. Applicable Law:

The court reviews “the ALJ’s decision to deny disability insurance benefits de novo to 

ensure that there was no legal error that the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence 

on the record as a whole.” Brown v. Colvin, 825 F. 3d 936, 939 (8th Cir. 2016). Substantial 

evidence is less than a preponderance, but it is enough that a reasonable mind would find it 

adequate to support the Commissioner’s decision. Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S.Ct. 1148, 1154 

Case 5:24-cv-05111-TLB Document 15 Filed 12/04/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>
3 

(2019). We must affirm the ALJ’s decision if the record contains substantial evidence to support 

it. Lawson v. Colvin, 807 F.3d 962, 964 (8th Cir. 2015). As long as there is substantial evidence 

in the record that supports the Commissioner’s decision, the court may not reverse it simply 

because substantial evidence exists in the record that would have supported a contrary outcome, 

or because the court would have decided the case differently. Miller v. Colvin, 784 F.3d 472, 477 

(8th Cir. 2015). In other words, if after reviewing the record it is possible to draw two inconsistent 

positions from the evidence and one of those positions represents the findings of the ALJ, the court

must affirm the ALJ’s decision. Id.

It is well established that a claimant for Social Security disability benefits has the burden 

of proving his disability by establishing a physical or mental disability that has lasted at least one 

year and that prevents him from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. Pearsall v. 

Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1217 (8th Cir. 2001); see also 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). The Act 

defines “physical or mental impairment” as “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). A Plaintiff must show that 

his disability, not simply his impairment, has lasted for at least twelve consecutive months.

The Commissioner’s regulations require him to apply a five-step sequential evaluation 

process to each claim for disability benefits: (1) whether the claimant has engaged in substantial 

gainful activity since filing his claim; (2) whether the claimant has a severe physical and/or mental 

impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment(s) meet or equal an 

impairment in the listings; (4) whether the impairment(s) prevent the claimant from doing past 

relevant work; and, (5) whether the claimant is able to perform other work in the national economy 

given his age, education, and experience. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. Only if the final 

Case 5:24-cv-05111-TLB Document 15 Filed 12/04/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>
4

stage is reached does the fact finder consider the Plaintiff’s age, education, and work experience 

in light of his residual functional capacity. See McCoy v. Schweiker, 683 F.2d 1138, 1141-42 (8th 

Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds by Higgins v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 504, 505 (8th Cir. 2000); 20 

C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 416.920.

III. Discussion:

Of particular concern to the undersigned is the ALJ’s RFC determination. RFC is the most 

a person can do despite that person’s limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). It is assessed using 

all relevant evidence in the record. Id. This includes medical records, observations of treating 

physicians and others, and the claimant’s own descriptions of his limitations. Guilliams v. 

Barnhart, 393 F.3d 798, 801 (8th Cir. 2005); Eichelberger v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 584, 591 (8th 

Cir. 2004). Limitations resulting from symptoms such as pain are also factored into the assessment. 

20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has held 

that a “claimant’s residual functional capacity is a medical question.” Lauer v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 

700, 704 (8th Cir. 2001). Therefore, an ALJ’s determination concerning a claimant’s RFC must 

be supported by medical evidence that addresses the claimant’s ability to function in the 

workplace. Lewis v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 642, 646 (8th Cir. 2003). “[T]he ALJ is [also] required 

to set forth specifically a claimant’s limitations and to determine how those limitations affect his 

RFC.” Id. 

In the present case, the ALJ determined Plaintiff maintained the RFC to perform light work 

with limitations that include understanding, remembering, and carrying out simple instructions; 

responding to supervision that is simple, direct, and concrete; and having occasional interaction 

with supervisors, co-workers, and the public. (Tr. 19). In doing so, the ALJ found the November 

of 2021, opinion of consultative examiner, Richard D. Back, PhD., was not persuasive “as it is 

Case 5:24-cv-05111-TLB Document 15 Filed 12/04/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>
5

generally only supported by the claimant’s subjective allegation and is not consistent with the 

conservative findings on mental status examination.” (Tr. 36, 3816-3822). A review of Dr. Back’s 

assessment revealed Plaintiff’s report of experiencing migraine headaches, a depressed mood, low 

energy, and memory problems. After evaluating Plaintiff, Dr. Back diagnosed Plaintiff with 

somatic symptom disorder, with predominate pain; dysthymia; minor vascular neurocognitive

disorder, and a mild intellectual disorder. With respect to adaptive functioning, Dr. Back opined

that Plaintiff had marked limitations with communicating and interacting in a socially adequate 

manner, coping with typical mental/cognitive demands of basic work-like tasks, and attending and 

sustaining concentration on basic tasks unpersuasive. 

A review of the 5,860-page transcript revealed that in September of 2017, Plaintiff 

experienced a transient ischemic attack with subsequent medical records revealing Plaintiff 

experienced another transient ischemic attack, non-ST-elevation myocardial infarctions, and

cerebrovascular accidents over a six-year time span. Of particular concern to the undersigned are 

the MRIs and CT scans of Plaintiff’s brain revealing microvascular ischemic disease1 and 

extensive white matter disease,

2 both of which, provide objective evidence supporting Plaintiff’s 

reports of memory problems and headaches as Plaintiff reported to Dr. Back. (Tr. 3539, 3899, 

4235, 4270, 5208, 5236, 5239). The Court acknowledges that the ALJ also had the March of 2022, 

and August of 2022, opinions of the non-examining medical consultants, who opined Plaintiff 

could perform unskilled work, before him when determining Plaintiff’s RFC; however, it is unclear 

1 Microvascular ischemic disease is an umbrella term that refers to a variety of changes in the small blood vessel of 

the brain that can cause a range of complications from difficulty focusing to a stroke. See

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22927-microvascular-ischemic-disease.

2 White matter disease is an umbrella term for damage to a white matter in the brain caused by reduced blood flow 

to tissue which can cause issues. Symptoms can include memory problems and mood changes. See

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/23018-white-matter-disease.

Case 5:24-cv-05111-TLB Document 15 Filed 12/04/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>
6 

from the record whether these non-examining consultants had all of the relevant medical records 

before them when assessing Plaintiff’s capabilities. (Tr. 74, 137). After reviewing the record, the 

Court finds remand necessary for the ALJ to more fully and fairly develop the record with respect 

to Plaintiff’s alleged neurological and neurovascular impairments for the time period in question. 

With this evidence, the ALJ should then re-evaluate Plaintiff's RFC and specifically list in 

a hypothetical to a vocational expert any limitations that are indicated in the RFC assessment and 

supported by the evidence. 

IV. Conclusion:

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends reversing the decision of the ALJ 

and remanding this case to the Commissioner for further consideration pursuant to sentence four 

of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The parties have fourteen days from receipt of our report and 

recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The 

failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 

The parties are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo 

review by the district court.

DATED this 4th day of December 2024. 

 

 /s/ _________________________________

 CHRISTY COMSTOCK

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:24-cv-05111-TLB Document 15 Filed 12/04/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>