Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_05-cv-06073/USCOURTS-arwd-6_05-cv-06073-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 865
Nature of Suit: Social Security - RSI (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:402 Social Security Benefits

---

Linda S. McMahon became the Social Security Commissioner on January 20, 2007. 

1

Pursuant to Rule 25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Linda S. McMahon has

been substituted for acting Commissioner Jo Anne B. Barnhart as the defendant in this suit. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION 

PATRICIA A. PAYTON PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-6073

LINDA S. MCMAHON,1

Commissioner, Social 

Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, Patricia A. Payton, 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 denying

her application for disability insurance benefits (DIB) under

Title II of the Social Security Act and for Social Security

benefits under the provisions of Title XVIII of the Act. The

Court has before it the brief of the Plaintiff (Doc. 8), brief

of the Commissioner (Doc. 9), and the transcript of the Social

Security proceedings. 

Procedural Background.

Plaintiff filed her application for Social Security

benefits and DIB on April 14, 2003, with a protective filing

date of April 1, 2003. (Tr. 47-49). Plaintiff alleged a

disability onset date of October 2, 1996, because of bipolar

disorder, hypothyroidism, pain in her right hip, stomach

Case 6:05-cv-06073-RTD Document 11 Filed 02/08/07 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

problems and internal bleeding. (Tr. 11). Plaintiff’s

application was denied initially and on reconsideration.

Plaintiff requested a hearing and on November 8, 2004, a hearing

was held in front of Administrative Law Judge Rebsamen, and

Plaintiff was represented by counsel. (Tr. 11). Plaintiff’s

friend, Nancy Harter, and vocational expert, Richard Marron,

testified at the hearing. (Tr. 11). Plaintiff’s request for a

review by the Appeals Council was denied on July 28, 2005. The

decision of the ALJ became the final decision of the

Commissioner. (Tr. 3). 

In a January 27, 2005 Opinion, the ALJ found Plaintiff was

not disabled prior to her date last insured (DLI), June 30,

2000. The ALJ determined that prior to June 30, 2000, Plaintiff

retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform

unskilled work at all exertional levels (Tr. 18, Finding 7).

The ALJ further determined that despite her mental impairment of

bipolar disorder, Plaintiff remained able to perform work where

interpersonal contact would be incidental to the work performed,

the complexity of tasks would be learned and performed by rote,

few variables would be involved, and little independent judgment

would be required. (Tr. 18, Finding 6). Plaintiff seeks

judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision. 

Case 6:05-cv-06073-RTD Document 11 Filed 02/08/07 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

Evidence Presented.

At the hearing before the ALJ, Plaintiff testified she was

fifty-eight years old, a high school graduate, and attended

three years of college. Plaintiff indicated her last job was

for the Sentinel Record in Hot Springs. Her job was to take

display ads for the newspaper to the vendors for proofreading,

but she worked less than one year. (Tr. 455-456). 

Plaintiff’s alleged date of onset was October 2, 1996. At

the hearing, Plaintiff reported attempting suicide multiple

times, suffering from uncontrollable outbursts, depression, and

hip pain. (Tr. 455-465). A Vocational Expert (VE) testified at

the hearing that Plaintiff had no past relevant work or any

exertional limitations, and provided several jobs available for

Plaintiff given her condition. (Tr. 473). 

Applicable Law.

This Court's role is to determine whether the

Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence on

the record as a whole. Ramirez v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 576, 583

(8th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence is less than a

preponderance but enough that a reasonable mind would find it

adequate to support the Commissioner's decision. Id. The ALJ's

decision must be affirmed if the record contains substantial

evidence to support it. Edwards v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 964, 966

(8th Cir. 2003). As long as there is substantial evidence in

Case 6:05-cv-06073-RTD Document 11 Filed 02/08/07 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
-4-

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.

Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2001). 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 decision of

the ALJ must be affirmed. Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065, 1068

(8th Cir. 2000).

It is well-established that a claimant for Social Security

disability benefits has the burden of proving her disability by

establishing a physical or mental disability that has lasted at

least one year and prevents her 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),

1382c(a)(3)(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), 1382(3)(c). A plaintiff

must show that her disability, not simply her impairment, has

lasted for at least twelve consecutive months.

Case 6:05-cv-06073-RTD Document 11 Filed 02/08/07 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
-5-

The Commissioner's regulations require application of a

five-step sequential evaluation process to each claim for

disability benefits: (1) whether the claimant has engaged in

substantial gainful activity since filing her claim; (2) whether

the claimant has a severe physical and/or mental impairment or

combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment(s)

meet(s) or equal(s) an impairment in the listings; (4) whether

the impairment(s) prevent(s) the claimant from doing past

relevant work; and, (5) whether the claimant is able to perform

other work in the national economy given her age, education, and

experience. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. Only if the

final stage is reached does the fact finder consider the

plaintiff's age, education, and work experience in light of her

residual functional capacity (RFC). See McCoy v. Schweiker, 683

F.2d 1138, 1141-42 (8th Cir. 1982); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520,

416.920. The burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove first,

that Plaintiff retained the RFC to do other kinds of work, and

second, that work Plaintiff is able to do exists in substantial

number in the national economy. Nevland v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 853,

857 (8th Cir. 2000). 

Discussion.

Plaintiff alleges she became disabled on October 2, 1996,

due to bipolar disorder, hypothyroidism, right hip pain, stomach

problems, and internal bleeding (Tr. 11, 81). The ALJ found

Case 6:05-cv-06073-RTD Document 11 Filed 02/08/07 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
-6-

that Plaintiff had severe impairments in the form of bipolar

disorder and borderline personality disorder, but that she did

not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or

equaled a listed impairment. (Tr. 12-13, 17-18, Finding 3).

The ALJ found Plaintiff had been diagnosed with hypothyroidism,

but it was well controlled with medication (Tr. 12, 105). The

ALJ also found Plaintiff had undergone a cholecystectomy in

March 2000 with no complications (Tr. 12, 99-101). The ALJ

concluded these were not severe impairments because they were

controlled with medication and imposed no functional limitations

on Plaintiff (Tr. 12). See Wilson v. Chater, 76 F.3d 238, 241

(8th Cir. 1996) (finding that conditions controlled with diet

and medication cannot be considered disabling). An impairment

is not severe if it does not significantly limit Plaintiff’s

physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 20

C.F.R. § 404.1521. 

The role of this Court is to determine whether there is

substantial evidence in the record to support the decision of

the Commissioner, and not to reweigh the evidence or try the

issues de novo. Loving v. Dept. of HHS, 16 F.3d 967, 969 (8th

Cir. 1994). 

The medical evidence reveals that Plaintiff was admitted to

the hospital in October 1996 after an overdose of medications

(Tr. 250-354). Plaintiff was admitted to the Pathways program

Case 6:05-cv-06073-RTD Document 11 Filed 02/08/07 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
-7-

for follow-up care and reported a history of depression and

suicide attempts going back to the age of thirteen, but stated

she had been doing fairly well over the last fourteen years (Tr.

250-354). Plaintiff was diagnosed with major depression,

recurrent, borderline personality disorder, and it was noted

that Plaintiff had a long history of impulsive behavior. (Tr.

251). 

The ALJ found the medical evidence indicated Plaintiff had

been non-compliant with her treatment and medication regime (Tr.

15). The ALJ also found that when Plaintiff had been compliant,

her mental impairments consistently showed improvement with

themedication. (Tr. 15). After the ALJ considered the evidence

as a whole, he determined Plaintiff had the RFC to perform

unskilled work at all exertional levels. Plaintiff argues the

ALJ failed to adequately consider the opinion of Dr. Kevin Hale.

On December 26, 2002, Dr. Hale signed a “to whom it may

concern” letter that stated Plaintiff could not sustain gainful

employment at that time because she did not tolerate stressful

environments, and had manic depression, fatigue, and suicidal

thoughts (Tr. 112). Statements of this type are not medical

opinions but opinions concerning the application of the statute,

a task solely assigned to the discretion of the Commissioner.

Krogmeier v. Barnhart, 294 F.3d 1019, 1023 (8th Cir. 2002). A

conclusory statement, a statement not supported by medical

Case 6:05-cv-06073-RTD Document 11 Filed 02/08/07 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
-8-

diagnosis based on objective evidence, will not support a

finding of disability. Edwards v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 964, 967

(8th Cir. 2003). Moreover, it is clear that Plaintiff’s DLI was

two years prior to the letter by Dr. Hale. 

As the ALJ found, Plaintiff carried the burden of proving

she was disabled prior to June 30, 2000, in order to be eligible

for disability benefits. (Tr. 8). To qualify for Title II

disability benefits, disability must be established as of the

date last insured. Pyland v. Apfel, 149 F.3d 873, 876 (8th Cir.

1998). The Court finds the ALJ properly considered all the

evidence and concluded with an appropriate assessment of

Plaintiff’s impairments and RFC. 

The Court also finds the ALJ properly assessed the

credibility of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. When

assessing Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, the ALJ is required

to make an express credibility determination detailing his

reasons for discrediting the testimony. Lewis v. Barnhart, 353

F.3d 642 (8th Cir. 2003). If there are inconsistencies in the

evidence as a whole, the ALJ is permitted to disbelieve

Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. Cruse v. Bowen, 867 F.2d

1183, 1186 (8th Cir. 1989). The ALJ performed a Polaski

analysis and found that upon consideration of credibility

factors outlined in SSR 96-97p, Plaintiff’s subjective

allegations of chronic depression, anxiety, and panic attacks

Case 6:05-cv-06073-RTD Document 11 Filed 02/08/07 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
-9-

were not borne out by the overall record and not credible to the

extent alleged (Tr. 18, Finding 4). 

The ALJ found Plaintiff had only mild restrictions of

activities of daily living as she was able to take care of her

own personal needs as well as those of her husband and

grandchild (Tr. 15). The ALJ also noted that Plaintiff

testified she went to the store, cooked dinner, and attended

church (Tr. 15, 465-466). On her Supplemental Interview

Outline, Plaintiff reported being able to do laundry, wash

dishes, change sheets, iron, vacuum/sweep, take out the trash,

do home repairs, wash the car, shop for groceries and clothes,

run errands to the post office and bank, prepare meals, count

change, use a checkbook, walk for exercise and errands, attend

church, watch television, and read. (Tr. 66-67). The ALJ noted

that performance of activities such as these tend to erode

Plaintiff’s credibility and support his conclusion that she can

perform some work activities (Tr. 16). The ALJ also considered

the testimony of Plaintiff’s friend, Nancy Harter (Tr. 16), but

found it not persuasive as it was based upon an uncritical

acceptance of Plaintiff’s complaints and, to some degree, was

motivated by a desire to see Plaintiff obtain benefits. Siemers

v. Shalala, 47 F.3d 299, 302 (8th Cir. 1995)(holding that

assessing the credibility of the witnesses lies within the

province of the Secretary). The Court finds the record contains

Case 6:05-cv-06073-RTD Document 11 Filed 02/08/07 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
-10-

sufficient inconsistencies upon which the ALJ based his

decision. 

The ALJ determined that Plaintiff had no prior relevant

work which shifted the burden to the Commissioner to show there

were jobs in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform.

(Tr. 18, Finding 9). The testimony from the vocational expert

provided Plaintiff’s limitations and a list of jobs in the

national economy that such an individual could perform (Tr.

473). Those included garment folder (approximately 56, 519 such

jobs in the United States; 1,413 in Arkansas), cleaner/polisher

(approximately 1,193,758 such jobs in the United States; 1/381

in Arkansas), and counter clerk (approximately 59,739 such jobs

in the United States; 641 in Arkansas)(Tr. 473). 

The ALJ met his step five burden with proper use of the

vocational expert’s testimony and hypothetical examples. 

Conclusion.

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds the

Commissioner’s decision properly supported and is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff’s case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and a

separate judgment in accordance with the above will be entered.

Dated this 8th day of February, 2007.

/s/ Robert T. Dawson

HONORABLE ROBERT T. DAWSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:05-cv-06073-RTD Document 11 Filed 02/08/07 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>