Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_15-cv-00187/USCOURTS-ared-4_15-cv-00187-0/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

Christina S. Watson Plaintiff

v. No. 4:15‐CV–187‐SWW‐PSH

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner,

Social Security Administration Defendant

Recommended Disposition

Instructions

The following recommended disposition was prepared for U.S. District Judge

Susan Webber Wright.  A party to this dispute may file written objections to this

recommendation.  An objection must be specific and state the factual and/or legal basis

for the objection.  An objection to a factual finding must identify the finding and the

evidence supporting the objection.  Objections must be filed with the clerk of the court

no later than 14 days from the date of this recommendation.1  The objecting party must

serve the opposing party with a copy of an objection.  Failing to object within 14 days

waives the right to appeal questions of fact.2  If no objections are filed, Judge Moody

may adopt the recommended disposition without independently reviewing all of the

record evidence.

1

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

2

Griffini v. Mitchell, 31 F.3d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1994) (failure to file objections

waives right to de novo review and to appeal magistrate judge’s findings of fact).

Case 4:15-cv-00187-SWW Document 18 Filed 03/28/16 Page 1 of 9
Reasoning for Recommended Disposition

Christina S. Watson seeks judicial review of the denial of her application for

adult supplemental security income (SSI).3  Watson’s mother, Jannell Jackson,  applied

for child SSI for Watson three times in the past.4

  In 2008, the Commissioner granted

Jackson’s third application and awarded child SSI.5

  Watson’s child benefits ceased at

age 17, she says, because she received a settlement from a motor vehicle accident claim.6

When Watson turned 18, she applied for adult SSI and based her claim of eye

problems.7

The Commissioner’s decision.  The Commissioner’s ALJ identified borderline

intellectual functioning, morbid obesity, pseudotumor cerebri, chronic headaches,

asthma, and depressive disorder as severe impairments.8  The ALJ determined Watson

3

SSA record at p. 128 (applying on Mar. 27, 2012 and alleging disability

beginning Dec. 1, 2011).

4

Id. at p. 148 (reflecting denial of applications on Nov. 1, 2001 and Sept. 18, 2003).

See Jackson v Astrue, cause no. 4:06CV750JTR, docket entry # 17 (E.D. Ark. June 20, 2007,

aff’d no. 07‐2930 (8th Cir. 2008).

5

Id. at 148 (showing SSI was awarded on Feb. 28, 2008 and paid until Apr. 2011).

6

Id. at pp. 45‐46.

7

Id. at p. 155.

8

Id. at p. 26.

2

Case 4:15-cv-00187-SWW Document 18 Filed 03/28/16 Page 2 of 9
can do some unskilled sedentary work.9

  After a vocational expert identified available

unskilled sedentary work, the ALJ concluded that Watson is not disabled and denied

the application.10

After the Appeals Council denied review,11 the ALJ’s decision became the

Commissioner’s final decision for the purpose of judicial review.12  Watson filed this

case to challenge the decision.13  The recommended disposition explains why the court

should affirm the decision.

Watson’s allegations.  Watson complains about the ALJ’s consideration of

medical opinion evidence, a lack of specificity about obesity, and the determination

about the mental ability to work.14

Applicable legal principles.  When reviewing a decision denying an application

for SSI, the court must determine whether substantial evidence supports the decision

9

Id. at p. 31.

10Id. at pp. 37‐38.

11Id. at p. 1.

12See Anderson v. Sullivan, 959 F.2d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1992) (stating that “the Social

Security Act precludes general federal subject matter jurisdiction until administrative

remedies have been exhausted” and explaining that the Commissioner’s appeal

procedure permits claimants to appeal only final decisions).

13Docket entry # 1.

14Docket entry #s 13 & 17.

3

Case 4:15-cv-00187-SWW Document 18 Filed 03/28/16 Page 3 of 9
and whether the ALJ made a legal error.15  For substantial evidence to exist, a

reasonable mind must accept the evidence as adequate to support the determination

that Watson can do some unskilled sedentary work and that work exists that she can

do.16

Sedentary work “involves lifting no more than 10 pounds at a time and

occasionally lifting or carrying articles like docket files, ledgers, and small tools.”17  The

ALJ placed the following limitations on sedentary work:

(1) no frequent climbing or balancing;

(2) no concentrated exposure of respiratory irritants, temperature

extremes, or humidity; and

(3) unskilled work involving tasks with few variables learned and

performed by rote, little required independent judgment, incidental

interpersonal contact, and simple, direct, concrete supervision.18

15See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (requiring the district court to determine whether the

Commissioner’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the

Commissioner conformed with applicable regulations); Long v. Chater, 108 F.3d 185, 187

(8th Cir. 1997) (“We will uphold the Commissioner’s decision to deny an applicant

disability benefits if the decision is not based on legal error and if there is substantial

evidence in the record as a whole to support the conclusion that the claimant was not

disabled.”).

16Britton v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 328, 330 (8th Cir. 1990) (substantial evidence exists if

a reasonable mind will accept evidence as adequate to support conclusion).

1720 C.F.R. § 416.967(a).

18SSA record at p. 31.

4

Case 4:15-cv-00187-SWW Document 18 Filed 03/28/16 Page 4 of 9
For the following reasons, a reasonable mind will accept the evidence as adequate to

show Watson can work with these limitations for the following reasons:

1.  The record establishes no very serious functional limitation

preventing sedentary work.  Sedentary work “represents a significantly

restricted range of work.  Individuals who are limited to no more than

sedentary work by their medical impairments have very serious

functional limitations.”19

Treatment records establish obesity as a significant functional impairment.

“An [obese]  individual may have limitations in any of the exertional

functions....[Obesity] may also affect ability to do postural functions....”20

At age 18, Watson had a body mass index (BMI) of 71.21  Under medical

guidelines, a person with a BMI of at least 30 is obese.  Watson contends

the ALJ failed to sufficiently explain the impact of obesity on her ability to

work, but the reduction to sedentary work indicates Watson lacks the

capacity for higher exertional levels of work.

Treatment records establish pseudotumor cerebri as an additional

impairment.  Pseudotumor cerebri refers to increased pressure in the

skull.22  Increased pressure can cause optic nerves to swell and result in

vision loss.23 Symptoms include headaches that worsen with movement,

19SSR 96‐9p, Pol’y Interpretation Ruling Titles II & XVI: Determining Capability to Do

Other Work‐‐Implications of a Residual Functional Capacity for Less Than a Full Range of

Sedentary Work.

20SSR 02‐1p, Pol’y Interpretation Ruling Titles II & XVI: Evaluation of Obesity ¶ 8.

21SSA record at p. 352.

22See generally Parunyou Julayanont, Amputch Karukote, Doungporn Ruthirago,

Deepa Panikkath & Ragesh Panikkath, Idiopathic intracranial hypertension: ongoing clinical

challenges & future prospects, 9 J. of Pain Research 87 (2016); A.J. Degnana & L.M. Levy,

Pseudotumor Cerebri: Brief Rev. of Clinical Syndrome & Imaging Findings, 37 Am. J.

Neuroradiology 1986 (2006).

23Id.

5

Case 4:15-cv-00187-SWW Document 18 Filed 03/28/16 Page 5 of 9
ringing in the ears, dizziness, blurred vision, and double vision.24  Watson

experiences these symptoms from time to time.25

Pseudotumor cerebri is associated with obese women of reproductive

age.26  According to eye specialists, Watson risks losing her eyesight

unless she loses weight.  Medical providers prescribed medication,

therapeutic lumbar puncture, eye surgery, weight loss, diet changes, lap

band surgery, and exercise.  These recommendations indicate

pseudotumor cerebri can be treated.  Despite the risk of vision loss,

Watson has 20/20 vision.27

Medical evidence documents no very serious functional limitation

preventing sedentary work.  Watson has periodic exacerbations of asthma,

but she’s been treated and released.  Watson sought no medical treatment

during the 16 months preceding the ALJ’s decision.28  The lack of

treatment indicates Watson has no disabling symptoms.

24Id.

25SSA record at p. 273 (Dec. 28, 2011: left eye occasionally drifts outward,

occasional double vision), p. 261 (Jan. 11, 2012, increased headaches, intermittent eye

drift), p. 268 (Feb. 8, 2012: blurry vision when she walks up stairs, bothered by light),

p. 370 (Feb. 27, 2012: more ringing in the ears but good vision), p. 366 (Mar. 14, 2012:

frontal headaches when walking), p. 361 (Mar 21, 2012: still has frontal headaches but

not as bad, ear ringing when walking or with movement), p. 394 (May 7, 2012: headache

for one week, intermittent double vision).

26See generally Parunyou Julayanont, Amputch Karukote, Doungporn Ruthirago,

Deepa Panikkath & Ragesh Panikkath, Idiopathic intracranial hypertension: ongoing clinical

challenges & future prospects, 9 J. of Pain Research 87 (2016); A.J. Degnana & L.M. Levy,

Pseudotumor Cerebri: Brief Rev. of Clinical Syndrome & Imaging Findings, 37 Am. J.

Neuroradiology 1986 (2006).

27SSA record at pp. 260, 261, 268, 273, 287 & 361.

28Id. at p. 65 (confirming that she has had no treatment; she’s only pursued a

disability determination to qualify for Medicaid).

6

Case 4:15-cv-00187-SWW Document 18 Filed 03/28/16 Page 6 of 9
According to medical experts, obesity limits Watson to sedentary work.29

Sedentary work doesn’t require the type of movement that causes

Watson’s symptoms.  The ALJ excluded work environments that could

trigger an asthma attack.  A reasonable mind will accept the evidence as

adequate to support the decision because the ALJ required sedentary

work and excluded respiratory irritants.

2.  The record establishes no mental limitation preventing unskilled

work.  Unskilled sedentary work involves nonexertional activities, such as

capacities for seeing, manipulation, and understanding, remembering,

and carrying out simple instructions.30  Watson contends the ALJ should

have included more mental limitations, in part, based on a childhood

psychological evaluation.  

Although Watson alleged no mental impairment, the ALJ observed that

Watson underwent an agency psychological evaluation at age 12.  The

evaluation included IQ testing placing Watson at the high end of

borderline intellectual functioning.31  The evaluator suspected that Watson

could function at a higher level if she was able to improve her verbal skills

with special assistance.  The record doesn’t confirm whether Watson

received special assistance, but she testified that she received special

education in English.

Regardless of whether Watson improved her verbal skills after age 12, or

whether she now functions at a higher level of intellectual functioning,

she’s capable of at least unskilled work.  A mental health expert opined

that she can do work involving tasks with few variables learned and

performed by rote, little required independent judgment, incidental

interpersonal contact, and simple, direct, concrete supervision.  Watson

graduated from high school, completed her application documents,

29Id. at pp. 415 & 456.

30SSR 96‐9p, Pol’y Interpretation Ruling Titles II & XVI: Determining Capability to Do

Other Work‐‐Implications of a Residual Functional Capacity for Less Than a Full Range of

Sedentary Work.

31Docket entry # 15, pp. 461 & 463.

7

Case 4:15-cv-00187-SWW Document 18 Filed 03/28/16 Page 7 of 9
described her symptoms, and completed barber training.32  To the extent

she relies on other aspects of the child psychological evaluation, only the

IQ score bears on the result.  A reasonable mind will accept the evidence

as adequate to support the determination that Watson can do unskilled

work.

3.  Vocational evidence supports the decision.  The ALJ questioned a

vocational expert about available unskilled sedentary work.  The

vocational expert identified inspectors and mounters as representative

jobs.33  The availability of representative jobs shows work exists that

Watson can do, regardless of whether such work exists where she lives,

whether a job vacancy exists, or whether she would be hired if she applied

for work.34  Because such work exists, Watson isn’t disabled under social

security law.

Conclusion and Recommended Disposition

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision because a reasonable mind will

accept the evidence as adequate to support the decision.  Watson’s impairments permit

some unskilled, sedentary work.  The ALJ made no legal error.  For these reasons, the

undersigned magistrate judge recommends DENYING Watson’s request for relief

(docket entry # 2) and AFFIRMING the Commissioner’s decision.

32SSA record at pp. 59‐60 (she completed barber school and signed up to take

state licensing exam).

33Id. at p. 71.

3442 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(B).

8

Case 4:15-cv-00187-SWW Document 18 Filed 03/28/16 Page 8 of 9
Dated this 28th day of March, 2016.

____________________________

United States Magistrate Judge

9

Case 4:15-cv-00187-SWW Document 18 Filed 03/28/16 Page 9 of 9