Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02034/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02034-0/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 (SSID)

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION 

DAVID CARLTON PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-2034

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner,

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff David Carlton 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 his

application for disability insurance benefits (DIB) under the provisions of Title II of the Social

Security Act. 

Procedural Background:

Carlton filed his application for DIB on December 10, 1998. (Tr. 73-75). He alleged a

disability onset date of March 4, 1997, due to back pain, chest pain, right knee pain, and

emphysema. (Tr. 18, 73-75, 136). 

An administrative hearing was held on December 1, 2000. (Tr. 409-425). Carlton’s

counsel appeared and reported that Carlton was unable to attend due to his return to work as of

October 19, 1998. (Tr. 411). Transcripts of testimony Carlton had given in connection with a

worker’s compensation claim were admitted. (Tr. 178-179). A vocational expert also appeared

and testified. (Tr. ). Carlton’s counsel requested an award of benefits for a closed period from

Case 2:05-cv-02034-BSJ Document 7 Filed 03/08/06 Page 1 of 23 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

March 4, 1997, the alleged disability onset date, to October 19, 1998, the date Carlton returned

to work as a truck driver. (Tr. 17, 19). 

By written decision dated January 11, 2001, the administrative law judge (ALJ) found

that Carlton was not disabled within the meaning of the Act. (Tr. 14-25). The ALJ first noted

Carlton was precluded from seeking benefits prior to March 25, 1998, the day after the decision

denying a prior application for benefits. (Tr. 17). The ALJ noted that the reconsideration

decision was not appealed and found there was no good cause or other justification for reopening

the prior application. (Tr. 17). 

The ALJ found that, although severe, Carlton’s impairments did not meet or equal the

criteria of any of the impairments listed in Appendix I, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4 (Tr. 20).

After discrediting Carlton’s subjective allegations, the ALJ concluded that he maintained the

residual functional capacity (RFC) to engage in medium work with only occasional stooping or

crouching and avoiding dust, fumes, and gases. (Tr. 23). 

Carlton appealed the decision of the ALJ. (Tr. 10, 12-14). The decision of the ALJ

became the final decision of the Commissioner when the Appeals Council denied Carlton’s

request for review on January 4, 2005. (Tr. 6-8). 

Evidence Presented:

On May 22, 1992, Carlton was involved in a motor vehicle accident. (Tr. 385). Carlton’s

left 9th and 10th ribs were fractured. (Tr. 387). He reported neck and lower back pain. (Tr.

385-386). He was followed by Dr. Stevenson Flanigan and Dr. Charles Klapper. (Tr. 391-392).

He was estimated to have a permanent partial functional impairment of 10% with reference to

the range of movements for his lower back and neck. (Tr. 392).

Case 2:05-cv-02034-BSJ Document 7 Filed 03/08/06 Page 2 of 23 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

On October 23, 1992, an MRI of Carlton’s cervical and lumbosaccral spine was done.

(Tr. 383-384). This showed minimal central bulging of the disc at the C3-C4 level. (Tr. 383).

The L3-L4, L4-L5, and L5-S1 intervertebral discs all exhibited some posterior bulging but no

evidence offrank herniation. (Tr. 384). The examination was also suspicious for spinal stenosis.

(Tr. 384).

On March 31, 1997, Carlton was seen by Dr. Ken Turner. (Tr. 352). According to Dr.

Turner’s office notes, Carlton reported a history of lumbar disc herniation in the past. (Tr. 352).

He reported that about five weeks previously he began having low back pain that radiated into

the right leg. (Tr. 352). Carlton had normal knee jerk and ankle jerk reflexes, normal

dorsiflexion and extension of both feet, and normal extension and flexion of knee and hip. (Tr.

352). Straight leg raise was positive bilaterally for right low back pain. (Tr. 352). A lumbar

spine x-ray showed a little osteoarthritic change in his lower lumbar spine but normal disc

heights and normal vertebral bodies. (Tr. 352). No deformities of the back were observed. (Tr.

352). Carlton was put on Lodine and Flexeril. (Tr. 352). Carlton was told to do no stooping and

lifting. (Tr. 352).

On April 11, 1997, Carlton was seen by Dr. Turner. (Tr. 350). On examination Carlton

had a positive straight leg raise bilaterally at 60 degrees for low back pain that goes to the right

low back. (Tr. 350). The pain also went down the right leg to the knee level. (Tr. 350). Carlton

had no weakness in the lower extremities. (Tr. 350). Reflexes were 1⁄2+ knees and 1⁄2+ at the

ankles. (Tr. 350).

Case 2:05-cv-02034-BSJ Document 7 Filed 03/08/06 Page 3 of 23 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-4-

On April 18, 1997, Carlton was seen at the Veteran’s Administration Hospital. (Tr. 298-

299). He reported having a back injury six years ago with a flare up of the injury seven weeks

ago. (Tr. 298). A disc herniation at L4-L5 was the diagnostic impression. (Tr. 299). 

On June 16, 1997, Carlton underwent a psychological/vocational evaluation by Dr.

Douglas A. Stevens, a clinical psychologist. (Tr. 280-281). Carlton reported being in constant

pain, in his right hip and down the right leg, going down the back of the right thigh, with the

whole lower leg aching, to the top of the foot. (Tr. 280). He reported pain when he bent his neck

forward, stayed in one position too long, or did physical activity. (Tr. 280). He reported his neck

was tight and ached and he had headaches. (Tr. 280). Carlton estimated that he could sit for

forty-five minutes, stand for fifteen minutes, walk one mile on level ground, but slowly, and lift

twenty to twenty-five pounds. (Tr. 280).

Carlton reported being frustrated and anxious because he was in debt and having to live

with his parents. (Tr. 280). Since he could not care for himself, he reported being irritable,

tense, and worried. (Tr. 280). He indicated his sleep was disturbed and his appetite varied. (Tr.

280). He had little energy and stayed tired all the time. (Tr. 280). He stated he liked to read but

after about twenty minutes his concentration was gone. (Tr. 280). Carlton felt worthless and it

was noted his distress was secondary to his loss of independence and inability to work. (Tr.

280).

On theWonderlic Personnel Test Carlton’s results were average for a man of his age with

a tenth-grade education. (Tr. 280). On the Crawford Small Parts Dexterity Test it was noted his

manual dexterity was poor, he could not work at a timely pace with his hand, and he could not

Case 2:05-cv-02034-BSJ Document 7 Filed 03/08/06 Page 4 of 23 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-5-

stay in a seated position. (Tr. 281). The MMPI reflected marked preoccupation with his chronic

pain and reactive depression. (Tr. 281). 

It was concluded that at that time Carlton was vocationally disabled. (Tr. 281). Note was

made that Carlton had socially withdrawn into his family’s home and was having frequent

deficiencies of concentration and persistence that blocked him from completing tasks in a timely

manner. (Tr. 281). It was also noted that he had deficiencies of pace, that were constant. (Tr.

281). He was assigned a global assessment of functioning (GAF) of 50. 

On June 26, 1997, Dr. Turner noted that Carlton was managing to tolerate the pain on just

Flexeril daily. (Tr. 349). On examination Carlton had a positive straight leg raise on the right

about 65 to 70 degrees. (Tr. 349).

On August 3, 1997, Carlton completed a supplemental interview outline. (Tr. 84-88).

He indicated he had completed the twelfth grade. (Tr. 87).

He indicated he could bathe, dress, shave, and take care of his own hair care needs. (Tr.

84). He could not do laundry, dishes, iron, vacuum/sweep, do home repairs, repair appliances,

repair the car, wash the car, mow the lawn, rake leaves, or do garden work because it caused too

much pain. (Tr. 84). He was able to take the trash out. (Tr. 84). 

He could not shop for groceries or clothes because it involved too much standing and

caused more than average pain. (Tr. 84). He indicated he could do the banking and go to the

post office. (Tr. 84). 

Since his disability began, he did not prepare meals but did make sandwiches and frozen

dinners. (Tr. 85). He indicated it took him about thirty minutes to do this which was longer

than it took before his disability began. (Tr. 85). 

Case 2:05-cv-02034-BSJ Document 7 Filed 03/08/06 Page 5 of 23 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-6-

He can use a check book and count change. (Tr. 85). He can drive for short distances

and can walk short distances for exercise. (Tr. 85). 

He did not use any assistive devices. (Tr. 85). He stated he spent his time watching

television, listening to the radio, reading, and visiting with friends/and relatives. (Tr. 85). 

He indicated he suffered from unusual fatigue and had to rest twice or more a day for one

to two hours. (Tr. 86). He stated he had lower back pain, hip pain which traveled the full length

of his right leg, and headaches. (Tr. 86). He indicated his pain was constant. (Tr. 86). He could

not stand, walk, or sit for any period of time without being in pain. (Tr. 86). His pain became

worse if he tried to lift or take on any everyday activities. (Tr. 86). 

Nothing helped with the pain other than medication. (Tr. 86). Since his disability began

he stated he had a high temper, low attention span, and stayed to himself. (Tr. 87). He also

indicated his nerves bothered him a lot. (Tr. 88). On an average day, Carlton indicated he slept,

sat, stood, ate, walked through the house, and sometimes walked across the field to his parents’

house. (Tr. 87). 

On September 15, 1997, Dr. Brad Williams, a psychologist, completed a psychiatric

review technique from. (Tr. 284-292). It was concluded that Carlton had an affective disorder

and somatoform disorder. (Tr. 284). With respect to functional limitations, it was concluded

these disorders would result in a slight restriction of his activities of daily living, moderate

difficulties in maintaining social functioning, would often result in deficiencies of concentration,

persistence, or pace, and would neverresult in episodes of deterioration or decompensation. (Tr.

291).

Case 2:05-cv-02034-BSJ Document 7 Filed 03/08/06 Page 6 of 23 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-7-

A mental residual functional capacity assessment was also completed. (Tr. 301-304). 

Carlton was noted to be moderately limited in the following categories: the ability to maintain

attention and concentration for extended periods; the ability to complete a normal workday and

workweek without interruptions from psychologically based symptoms and to perform at a

consistent pace without an unreasonable number and length of rest periods; the ability to accept

instructions and respond appropriately to criticism from supervisors, and the ability to set

realistic goals or make plans independently of others. (Tr. 301-302). There were no areas

Carlton was markedly limited in. Dr. Williams concluded Carlton was able to “perform work

where interpersonal contact is routine but superficial, e.g., grocery checker; complexity of tasks

is learned by experiences, several variables, uses judgement with limits; supervision required is

little for routine but detailed for non-routine.” (Tr. 303). 

On September 4, 1997, Carlton had a MRI of his lumbar spine. (Tr. 309). It revealed a

large right paracentral disc herniation at L4-L5. (Tr. 309). An associated encroachment on the

right lateral recess and right neural forament at L4-L5 was also noted. (Tr. 309). Additionally,

there was an indentation and impingement upon the anterior and right paracentral aspect to the

thecal sac. (Tr. 309). Mild annuler disc bulging was noted at the L3-L4 disc levels and to a

lesser degree at L5-S1. (Tr. 309). 

On September 25, 1997, Carlton was seen by Dr. Turner. (Tr. 349). Dr. Turner noted

that Carlton’s reflexes in the ankles and knees were equal, his strength was good in the lower

extremities, he had no weakness, good dorsiflexion of both feet, and he had good extension and

flexion of the knee and hip. (Tr. 349).

Case 2:05-cv-02034-BSJ Document 7 Filed 03/08/06 Page 7 of 23 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-8-

Later that day, Carlton was seen at the neurology department of the VA and put on bed

rest for two or three weeks. (Tr. 307). He was prescribed Naproxen and Flexaril. (Tr. 307).

On October 17, 1997, Dr. Turner noted Carlton continued to show positive straight leg

raise on the right at about 50 degrees. (Tr. 348). Carlton had no weakness of the leg, normal

reflexes, normal dorsiflexion of his ankle, extension and flexion of the knee and hip were good.

(Tr. 348).

Carlton was seen at the VA on November 6, 1997. (Tr. 306). It was noted he was doing

well. (Tr. 306). He was placed on bed rest for another two weeks and his pain medication

continued. (Tr. 306). 

On December 1, 1997, Dr. Turner noted Carlton continued to have significant radicular

symptoms involving the right leg. (Tr. 347). He had a positive straight leg raising test on the

right but no weakness. (Tr. 347). In Dr. Turner’s opinion Carlton was “disabled from his usual

employment for a period of at least 6 months.” (Tr. 347).

On January 2, 1998, Carlton was seen by Dr. Turner. (Tr. 346). On examination his

straight leg raise was positive for radicular pain into the left leg. (Tr. 346). His reflexes were

normal and he had no weakness. (Tr. 346). 

On January 30, 1998, Dr. Turner noted that Carlton reported getting better although he

was still not getting around real well. (Tr. 346). His examination showed a positive straight leg

test at 60 degrees but no muscle weakness and no loss of reflexes. (Tr. 346).

On March 2, 1998, Carlton was seen by Dr. Turner. (Tr. 345). Carlton continued to have

back pain that radiated down his right leg. (Tr. 345). His straight leg raise was positive on the

right at 45 degrees, knee jerk reflexes only 1⁄2 + in the right knee and 1+ in the left knee. (Tr.

Case 2:05-cv-02034-BSJ Document 7 Filed 03/08/06 Page 8 of 23 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-9-

345). Ankle jerks were normal bilaterally. (Tr. 345). His disability was continued through June.

(Tr. 345).

On March 5, 1998, Carlton was seen following conservative therapy for three to four

weeks. (Tr. 339). He reported the therapy helped a lot but he still had weakness and pain. (Tr.

339). 

On March 4, 1998, Dr. Kathryn M. Gale completed a psychiatric review technique from.

(Tr. 312-320). It was concluded that Carlton had an affective disorder. (Tr. 312). With respect

to functional limitations, it was concluded these disorders would result in a slight restriction of

his activities of daily living, slight difficulties in maintaining social functioning, would often

result in deficiencies of concentration, persistence, or pace, and would never result in episodes

of deterioration or decompensation. (Tr. 319).

A mental residual functional capacity assessment was also completed. (Tr. 321-324). 

Carlton was noted to be moderately limited in the following categories: the ability to carry out

detailed instructions; the ability to maintain attention and concentration for extended periods; the

ability to complete a normal workday and workweek without interruptions from psychologically

based symptoms and to perform at a consistent pace without an unreasonable number and length

of rest periods; the ability to interact appropriately with the general public; and the ability to set

realistic goals or make plans independently of others. (Tr. 321-322). There were no areas

Carlton was markedly limited in. Dr. Gale concluded Carlton was able to “perform work where

interpersonal contact is routine but superficial, e.g., grocery checker; complexity of tasks is

learned by experiences, several variables, uses judgement with limits; supervision required is

little for routine but detailed for non-routine.” (Tr. 323). 

Case 2:05-cv-02034-BSJ Document 7 Filed 03/08/06 Page 9 of 23 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-10-

On March 16, 1998, a physical residual functional capacity assessment was completed

by Dr. Alice Davidson, a medical consultant. (Tr. 325-332). With respect to exertional

limitations, it stated Carlton could occasionally lift or carry fifty pounds; could frequently lift or

carry twenty-five pounds; could stand and/or walk about six hours in an eight-hour workday;

could sit about six hours in an eight-hour workday; and his ability to push and pull was

unlimited other than as shown for lift and/or carry. (Tr. 326). No postural, manipulative, visual,

communicative, or environmental limitations were established. (Tr. 327-329). It was noted that

the symptoms were attributable to a medically determinable impairment. (Tr. 330). 

On March 17, 1998, Susan Farque, a vocational analyst, concluded Carlton had the

capacity to perform a partial range of medium work. (Tr. 130). She concluded he could lift a

maximum of fifty pounds and frequently lift and/or carry twenty-five pounds, stand and/or walk

 a total of six hours in an eight hour day, and sit about six hours in an eight hour day. (Tr. 130).

Carlton was restricted to only occasional stooping and crouching. (Tr. 130). Farque concluded

Carlton had the mental capacity to perform work where interpersonal contact was only routine

but not superficial and performed tasks were no more complex than those learned by experience

with several variables and use of judgment within limits. (Tr. 130). Little supervision was

required for routine tasks but detailed supervision was required for non-routine tasks. (Tr. 130).

On April 3, 1998, Carlton was seen byDr. Turner. (Tr. 345). He continued to have some

low back pain that radiated into his right leg but was improving. (Tr. 345). He ambulated

without limping, his straight leg raise was positive at about 70 degrees on the right and negative

on the left. (Tr. 345). Reflexes were about 1⁄2 plus bilaterally. (Tr. 345). He had no weakness

when he stands up. (Tr. 345). Dr. Turner noted he was improving significantly. (Tr. 345).

Case 2:05-cv-02034-BSJ Document 7 Filed 03/08/06 Page 10 of 23 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-11-

On April 23, 1998, Carlton was seen at the VA complaining of pain in his right

lumbar/scaral area into the right lateral aspect of his leg, just past the knee. (Tr. 337). He was

able to walk on his toes and heels without difficulty, his reflexes were intact, he denied any

numbness or tingling, and he reported an improvement in strength and pain. (Tr. 337-338). 

On April 30, 1998, Carlton was seen by Dr. Jacek Malik. (Tr. 336). It was noted Carlton

had been having pain in his back and to his right lower extremity. (Tr. 336). If he continued to

have symptoms, a right L4/5 partial hemilaminectomy and diskectomy was recommended. (Tr.

336).

On May 6, 1998, Carlton was seen by Dr. Turner. (Tr. 344). Note was made of the fact

that he had a positive straight leg raise on the right. (Tr. 344). His reflexes were intact. (Tr.

344). Dr. Turner noted Carlton was beginning to improve. (Tr. 344). His disability was

continued through July of 1998. (Tr. 344). 

On June 10, 1998, Carlton’s deposition was taken in connection with a claim pending

before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission. (Tr. 178-232). Carlton testified he

was forty-eight years old and living with his parents. (Tr. 180 & 182). He had been married

twice to the same woman and had two children, twins, who were now adults. (Tr. 183-184).

He was not taking any medication. (Tr. 182). Carlton testified he graduated high school

and had training in carpentry, brick laying, trucking, and logging. (Tr. 184-185). He was in the

Army and drove truck and did mechanic work. (Tr. 185-187).

Prior to his injury at Tommy Davidson Trucking, Carlton had never had any

psychological or psychiatric treatment or problems. (Tr. 191). Carlton was asked if he was

Case 2:05-cv-02034-BSJ Document 7 Filed 03/08/06 Page 11 of 23 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-12-

having psychological problems now. (Tr. 191). He responded: “No. Irritation. I don’t know

if that would be psychological or not.” (Tr. 191).

Carlton was injured in the mid to late eighties when he was working for Mr. Gilmore

hauling from a lumber mill. (Tr. 193). A pickup pulled out in front of him and caused an

automobile accident. (Tr. 194). 

Carlton was treated for cracked rips and he also injured his back–around the middle of

his hips. (Tr. 195). He had a tight pulling sensation in his back. (Tr. 195). His back condition

healed up after the accident. (Tr. 198). 

Carlton had no more problems with his back until he injured it on the job while working

for Tommy Davidson Trucking. (Tr. 199 & 215-216). He was injured unloading a fifty pound

box of chicken from a truck in Ohio on March 4, 1997. (Tr. 203-205). His back started burning.

(Tr. 205). The condition gradually got worse as he unloaded the last fifteen boxes from the

truck. (Tr. 206). He could feel a muscle pulling in his lower back area–more on the right side

than the left. (Tr. 206). He didn’t have any symptoms in his legs at the time. (Tr. 207).

Carlton drove back to Arkansas following the injury. (Tr. 208). He had to stop a couple

of times to lay down. (Tr. 208). When he got back to the terminal, his symptoms were getting

worse. (Tr. 208). He was having sharp, gouging, pains in his back and had to lift his legs and

get on his back to ease the pain. (Tr. 208-209). 

Before he got back into Clarksville, Carlton called his brother and asked him to meet him

so he could do the driving. (Tr. 210). Carlton told his brother, Billy, that he could not make the

trip because his back hurt and he could not sit in the seat. (Tr. 210). When he got back to

Arkansas, he told the company dispatcher about his back injury. (Tr. 208 & 211). Carlton and

Case 2:05-cv-02034-BSJ Document 7 Filed 03/08/06 Page 12 of 23 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-13-

his brother then went to New Mexico to deliver a load. (Tr. 211). Carlton spent most of the time

in the sleeper and his brother drove. (Tr. 211). 

When Carlton got back to the terminal in Russelville, he told the “log book lady” about

his back injury. (Tr. 213). He told her he had hurt his back unloading. (Tr. 213). He told the

mechanics the same thing. (Tr. 213). The same week, Carlton also told J.D. Wilson that his

back was in bad shape and he was going to have to do something about it. (Tr. 214). Carlton

told Wilson the injury occurred in Ohio. (Tr. 214). 

It was about three weeks after he injured his back before he first got treatment. (Tr. 216).

Carlton went to Dr. Turner who prescribed medication and told him to take it easy. (Tr. 217).

Carlton went to the VA and had an MRI done and a “stretch test.” (Tr. 219). The VA

recommended surgery. (Tr. 219). However, Carlton hesitated to have surgery done. (Tr. 220).

Since his injury, Carlton had tried to do some work around the family farm. (Tr. 220).

He indicated he tried to stretch some wire on a fence or run a cow back in. (Tr. 220). He

testified he doesn’t do any heavy lifting. (Tr. 220). He has also checked on the stem and seed

quality of the hay to determine if it was time to cut it. (Tr. 221).

He drives a five speed car. (Tr. 222). He does dishes once in awhile and some cooking.

(Tr. 222). Occasionally he baby sits his sister’s kids, ages five and three. (Tr. 223). He can pick

up the three year old who weighs twenty-one pounds. (Tr. 223). 

Carlton testified the pain in his right leg goes all the way down to his foot. (Tr. 225).

Carlton estimated he might be able to sit for over an hour without having to get up. (Tr. 225).

He estimated he could stand less than thirty minutes without having to sit down or move. (Tr.

225). He estimated he could probably lift twenty pounds. (Tr. 226).

Case 2:05-cv-02034-BSJ Document 7 Filed 03/08/06 Page 13 of 23 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-14-

On June 22, 1998, Carlton was seen as an outpatient at the neurosurgery department of

the VA in Little Rock. (Tr. 334). It was noted he had no deviations in his gait, he could heel to

toe walk well, and his reflexes were intact. (Tr. 334). Carlton was noted to be neurologically

stable and he showed no interest in surgery. (Tr. 334). 

On October 6, 1998, Carlton was seen by Dr. Turner. (Tr. 343). He came in because he

wanted to quit smoking. (Tr. 343). The notes indicate he had been told four years ago he had

emphysema. (Tr. 343). Chest x-rays showed severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

(COPD). (Tr. 3430.

Carlton completed another supplemental interview outline on December 6, 1998. (Tr.

153-157). Carlton indicated he could take care of his own personal care needs and do laundry,

mow the lawn, rake some leaves, and do some garden work but no hoeing. (Tr. 153). He stated

he had never done dishes, changed the sheets, ironed, vacuumed/swept, taken out the trash, or

repaired appliances. (Tr. 153). He also stated he didn’t shop or bank. (Tr. 153).

He stated he could drive including unfamiliar routes and could walk for exercise. (Tr.

154). He stated he had pain in his back, hip, and leg. (Tr. 154). How long the pain lasted

depended on how exhausted he was. (Tr. 155). Lifting caused him pain. (Tr. 155). Walking

slow helped with the pain. (Tr. 155). Carlton was not on any medication. (Tr. 155).

On June 4, 1999, a physical residual functional capacity assessment was completed by

Dr. Delbra Caradine, a medical consultant. (Tr. 367-374). With respect to exertional limitations,

it stated Carlton could occasionally lift or carry fifty pounds; could frequently lift or carry

twenty-five pounds; could stand and/or walk about six hours in an eight-hour workday; could

sit about six hours in an eight-hour workday; and his ability to push and pull was unlimited other

Case 2:05-cv-02034-BSJ Document 7 Filed 03/08/06 Page 14 of 23 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-15-

than as shown for lift and/or carry. (Tr. 368). No postural, manipulative, visual, or

communicative limitations were established. (Tr. 369-371). With respect to environmental

limitations, it was noted he should avoid concentrated exposure to fumes, odors, dusts, gases,

and poor ventilation. (Tr. 371). It was noted that the symptoms were attributable to a medically

determinable impairment. (Tr. 372). 

On June 7, 1999, Pamela Blackmon, a vocational analyst, concluded Carlton had the

capacity to perform a full range of medium work. (Tr. 167). She noted he should avoid

exposure to excess dust and fumes. (Tr. 167). On August 30, 1999, Susan Farque, stated it was

her opinion that Carlton from March of 1997 through the present had the capacity to perform

medium work with occasional stooping and crouching. (Tr. 174).

On August 27, 1999, a physical residual functional capacity assessment was completed

by Dr. Ronald W. Crow, a medical consultant. (Tr. 375-382). With respect to exertional

limitations, it stated Carlton could occasionally lift or carry fifty pounds; could frequently lift or

carry twenty-five pounds; could stand and/or walk about six hours in an eight-hour workday;

could sit about six hours in an eight-hour workday; and his ability to push and pull was

unlimited other than as shown for lift and/or carry. (Tr. 376). With respect to postural

limitations, it indicated Carlton should only occasionally engage in stooping or crouching. (Tr.

377). No manipulative, visual, communicative, or environmental limitations were established.

(Tr. 378-379). It was noted that the symptoms were attributable to a medically determinable

impairment. (Tr. 380). 

Case 2:05-cv-02034-BSJ Document 7 Filed 03/08/06 Page 15 of 23 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-16-

On December 1, 2000, a hearing was held before the ALJ. (Tr. 409-425). Carlton had

returned to work and did not appear at the hearing. (Tr. 411). His attorney asked that he be

awarded a closed period of disability from March 4, 1997, to October 19, 1998. (Tr. 411).

Sara Moore, a vocational expert, testified. (Tr. 413-424). Moore was asked a series of

hypothetical questions. In the first, she was asked to assume a claimant who was the same age,

education, and vocational background as Carlton and who had a good ability to read, write, and

use numbers who had the following restrictions: the person could occasionally lift up to fifty

pounds; frequently lift up to twenty-five pounds; stand or walk six hours in an eight hour day;

sit six hours in an eight hour day; only occasionally stoop and crouch; and must avoid

concentrated exposure to fumes, odors, dust, and gases. (Tr. 416-417). 

Moore indicated there were jobs in the regional or national economy such a person could

perform. (Tr. 417). She stated that the driving a tractor-trailer would fall within that

hypothetical. (Tr. 417). She indicated this occupation was at the medium exertional level as it

was customarily performed. (Tr. 417). She also indicated there were other jobs at the medium

exertional level such as a forklift operator, material handler, stock clerk, hand packager. (Tr.

418). Moore identified the following jobs at the light exertional level: machine setters and

operators, cashier jobs, and assembly and productions jobs (Tr. 419).

Moore was then asked to change the hypothetical to that of a claimant with a tenth grade

education and one with poor manual dexterity who could not work at a timely pace with hands,

nor stay in a seated position for prolonged periods. (Tr. 423). Additionally, she was asked to

add the following: affective disorder and chronic pain that would affect the ability to focus and

frequent deficiencies of concentration and persistence that keep him from completing tasks in

Case 2:05-cv-02034-BSJ Document 7 Filed 03/08/06 Page 16 of 23 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-17-

a timely manner. (Tr. 423). It was noted deficiencies of pace were constant. (Tr. 423). With

these additional restrictions, Moore testified there were no jobs in the regional or national

economy that this person could perform. (Tr. 423). 

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 it is enough that a reasonable mind

would find it adequate to support the Commissioner's decision. 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 the record that supports the

Commissioner's decision, the court maynot 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 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),

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

Case 2:05-cv-02034-BSJ Document 7 Filed 03/08/06 Page 17 of 23 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-18-

medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 42 U.S.C. § § 423(d)(3),

1382(3)(c). A plaintiff must show that his disability, not simply his impairment, has lasted for

at least twelve consecutive months.

The Commissioner's regulations require her 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 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); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920.

Discussion:

Carlton contends the ALJ erred in a number of ways. First, he contends the ALJ erred

in concluding that he had no severe mental impairment. Carlton argues the ALJ’s summary of

Carlton’s mental impairment as being “irritability” significantly conflicts with the professional

opinion of Dr. Stevens. Carlton points out Dr. Stevens’ report indicates Carlton has a tendency

toward irritation, tenseness and worry, as well as decreased concentration and feelings of

worthlessness. Carlton also notes he was assigned a GAF score of 50 by Dr. Stephens.

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV), Carlton points out this score

Case 2:05-cv-02034-BSJ Document 7 Filed 03/08/06 Page 18 of 23 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-19-

reflects serious impairment of the patient’s social and occupational function. See also

Brueggemann v. Barnhart, 348 F.3d 689, 695 (8th Cir. 2003). 

We believe the ALJ carefully considered the report of Dr. Stevens along with all other

available evidence regarding Carlton’s alleged mental impairment and had valid reasons for

discrediting Dr. Stevens’ report. Dr. Stevens saw Carlton only once and it was clear from Dr.

Stevens’ report, as pointed out by the ALJ, that Carlton’s emotional problems were situational.

This one time examination occurred in June of 1997 many months before the closed period of

disability at issue, March 25, 1998, through October 19, 1998. There is no evidence Carlton

received any follow-up treatment from Dr. Stevens or any other mental health professional or any

type of mental health treatment from his medical doctors.

The ALJ gave careful consideration to Carlton’s testimony during his deposition and

during the hearing before the Worker’s Compensation Commission. During his deposition,

Carlton asked if there were problems other than his back that would cause him to be disabled

from working, he replied that other than his back he couldn’t recall anything. (Tr. 224). Carlton

summed up the his mental impairments as irritability. (Tr. 191). In fact, on June 10, 1998,

Carlton testified he wasn’t having psychological problems–just irritation. (Tr. 191). The records

of his treating physicians contain little mention of any mental impairments, the necessity of any

treatment for the same, or a referral for treatment for the same.

Second, Carlton contends the ALJ improperly discredited his subjective complaints.

Specifically, he contends the ALJ’s decision fails to discuss all the Polaski factors instead

hinging primarily on the ALJ’s belief that Carlton’s daily activities were inconsistent with a

Case 2:05-cv-02034-BSJ Document 7 Filed 03/08/06 Page 19 of 23 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-20-

disabling condition. Carlton argues the ALJ while reciting Carlton’s activities failed to note that

the activities were limited and done only on a sporadic basis. 

In disability determinations, credibility assessments are the province of the ALJ. Onstead

v. Sullivan, 962 F.2d 803, 805 (8th Cir. 1992). This court will not substitute its judgment for that

of the trier of fact, Brown v. Chater, 87 F.3d 963, 966 (8th Cir. 1996), nor will we disturb the

decision of any ALJ who seriously considers, but for good reason explicitly discredits, a

claimant’s testimony of disabling pain. Reed v. Sullivan, 988 F.2d 812, 815 (8th Cir. 1993). 

In this case, we believe the ALJ adequately evaluated the factors set forth in Polaski v.

Heckler, 739 F.2d1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984) and conclude there is substantial evidence

supporting the ALJ’s determination that Carlton’s complaints were not fully credible. The ALJ

properly considered Carlton’s testimony during his deposition and during the hearing before the

Worker’s Compensation Commission regarding the condition of his back and his daily activities.

Carlton testified that his back gradually got better during the year he was off. (Tr. 249). Carlton

wasn’t sure of the date he got released to return to work but it was still warm weather in the

summer or fall. (Tr. 249 & 268). He was actually looking for work before he got a job on

October 19, 1998. (Tr. 272).

While he was off work, Carlton testified he worked around the farm. (Tr. 266). He ran

fence wire, counted cattle, helped take care of children, and drove a five-speed automobile, (Tr.

266-267). Carlton testified he was taking no medication. (Tr. 182). Moreover, on April 3, 1998,

Carlton’s doctor noted significant improvement in his condition. (Tr. 345). Additionally, on

April 23, 1998, Carlton reported an improvement in strength and pain. (Tr. 337-338). 

Case 2:05-cv-02034-BSJ Document 7 Filed 03/08/06 Page 20 of 23 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-21-

The ALJ pointed out inconsistencies between Carlton’s treatment records and his

testimony and reviewed the medical records. The “ALJ is entitled to make a factual

determination that a Claimant’s subjective pain complaints are not credible in light of objective

medical evidence to contrary.” Ramirez v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 576, 581 (8th Cir. 2002); Black

v. Apfel, 143 F.3d 383, 388 (8th Cir. 1998)(upholding denial of benefits where no objective

medical evidence supported claimant’s subjective pain complaints).

Third, Carlton argues the ALJ inaccurately determined his RFC. Carlton argues there is

no evidence from a treating or examining medical source which supports the ALJ’s finding that

Carlton could have done medium exertional work activities during the relevant closed period.

Carlton points out Dr. Stevens stated that Carlton’s manual dexterity was poor, he could not

work at a timely pace, and he could not stay in a seated position. While Dr. Turner, the treating

physician did not assess Carlton’s functional capacities, it is argued Dr. Turner did state that

Carlton was disabled at least through July of 1998. Carlton contends it was error for the ALJ to

rely on the assessments of the non-examining agency physicians. 

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

Case 2:05-cv-02034-BSJ Document 7 Filed 03/08/06 Page 21 of 23 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-22-

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 carefully reviewed the medical records, plaintiff’s subjective

complaints, the plaintiff’s testimony regarding his daily activities, and the functional limitations

set forth by the non-examining physicians. The ALJ carefully explained his reasons for

discounting Dr. Turner’s characterization of Carlton as disabled and noted that as of April 23,

1998, Carlton could toe to heel walk and straight leg raise testing was negative. (Tr. 21).

The medical evidence does not support a finding of greater functional limitations than

those found to exist by the ALJ. In fact, the medical findings do not support any restrictions on

Carlton that would be inconsistent with this RFC. 

Finally, Carlton argues the ALJ erred because the hypothetical question to the vocational

expert was defective. Carlton argues the hypothetical was flawed because it assumed Carlton

could perform medium work without medical evidence to support that conclusion, did not make

any reference to chronic pain, and omitted the limitations set forth by Dr. Stevens. 

We find that the hypothetical the ALJ posed to the vocational expert fully set forth the

impairments which the ALJ accepted as true and which were supported by the record as a whole.

See Long v. Chater, 108 F.3d 185, 188 (8th Cir. 1997); Pickney v. Chater, 96 F.3d 294, 296 (8th

Cir. 1996). Accordingly, we find that the vocational expert's testimony constitutes substantial

evidence supporting the ALJ's conclusion that plaintiff was not entitled to a closed period of

disability from March 25, 1998, through October 19, 1998. See Pickney, 96 F.3d at 296

Case 2:05-cv-02034-BSJ Document 7 Filed 03/08/06 Page 22 of 23 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-23-

(testimony from vocational expert based on properly phrased hypothetical question constitutes

substantial evidence).

Conclusion:

For the reasons stated, the court finds that the decision of the Commissioner denying

benefits to the plaintiff should be affirmed.

Dated this 8th day of March 2006.

/s/ Beverly Stites Jones 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:05-cv-02034-BSJ Document 7 Filed 03/08/06 Page 23 of 23 PageID #: <pageID>