Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_14-cv-00680/USCOURTS-ared-4_14-cv-00680-0/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

Bobby Joe Ledford Jr. Plaintiff

v. No. 4:14‐CV–680‐SWW‐JTK

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner,

Social Security Administration Defendant

Recommended Disposition

Instructions

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

Susan W. 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 Wright

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 4:14-cv-00680-SWW Document 11 Filed 09/22/15 Page 1 of 11
Reasoning for Recommended Disposition

Bobby Joe Ledford Jr. seeks judicial review of the denial of his second application

for disability insurance benefits (DIB).3  Ledford worked for ConAgra Foods, as a

machine operator and a production weigher, for 24 years.4

  He was terminated for

absenteeism he attributes to medical problems.5

  Ledford anticipated termination and

applied for DIB before he was let go.6

  He based disability on atrial fibrillation,

migraines, sleep apnea, irritable bowel syndrome, and allergies.7

The Commissioner’s decision.  After considering the application, the ALJ

identified cardiovascular disorder (recurrent arrhythmias) as a severe impairment8 and

determined Ledford can do light work, to include his former job as a production

weigher.9

  Because a person who can do his past work is not disabled under social

security law, the ALJ determined Ledford isn’t disabled and denied the application.

3

SSA record at p. 125 (applying on Mar. 6, 2012 and alleging disability beginning

December 1, 2011).

4

Id. at pp. 29, 31, 226, 244 & 253.

5

Id. at p. 34.

6

Id. at p. 40 (explaining that he felt he was getting worse and needed to do

something in case he lost his job).

7

Id. at p. 252.

8

Id. at p. 14.

9

Id. at pp. 16 & 19.

2

Case 4:14-cv-00680-SWW Document 11 Filed 09/22/15 Page 2 of 11
After the Appeals Council denied review,10 the ALJ’s decision became the

Commissioner’s final decision for the purpose of judicial review.11  Ledford filed this

case to challenge the decision.12  In reviewing the decision, the court must determine

whether substantial evidence supports the decision and whether the ALJ made a legal

error.13  This recommendation explains why substantial evidence supports the decision

and why the ALJ made no legal error.

Ledford’s allegations.  Ledford challenges the determination that he can do his

former job.  He contends the agency medical experts didn’t consider enough medical

evidence to opine about his ability to work.  He claims the ALJ failed to discuss his

testimony in sufficient detail in evaluating his credibility.  He says the ALJ erred in

evaluating the effect of obesity.  He maintains the evidence is insufficient to show he

10Id. at p. 1.

11See 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).

12Docket entry # 1.

13See 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.”).

3

Case 4:14-cv-00680-SWW Document 11 Filed 09/22/15 Page 3 of 11
can work as a production weigher.  For these reasons, he argues substantial evidence

does not support the ALJ’s decision.14

Applicable legal principles.  A claimant who can do his past relevant work is

not disabled under social security law.15  For substantial evidence to exist, a reasonable

mind must accept the evidence as adequate to show Ledford can do light work, to

include his past work.16  “Light work involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time

with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds.”17  For the

following reasons, a reasonable mind will accept the evidence as adequate to support

the decision.

1.  Ledford’s impairments can be controlled with treatment.  Under

social security law, impairments that can be controlled by treatment or

medication are not considered disabling.18  Ledford’s primary impairment

is atrial fibrillation — an abnormal heart rhythm in which the upper

chambers of the heart are out of sync with the lower chambers of the

heart.19  Atrial fibrillation is a serious condition that can cause a blood clot

and lead to a stroke; however, a person “with atrial fibrillation ... can live

14Docket entry # 9.

1520 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).

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

1720 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b)

18Brown v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 535, 540 (8th Cir. 2004); Estes v. Barnhart, 275 F.3d

722, 725 (8th Cir. 2002).

19Lori De Milto, Atrial Fibrillation & Flutter, 1 The Gale Encyclopedia of Med. 532

(4th ed.).

4

Case 4:14-cv-00680-SWW Document 11 Filed 09/22/15 Page 4 of 11
a normal life for many years as long as the arrhythmia is controlled and

serious blood clots are prevented.”20  There are several treatments for

atrial fibrillation: medication, cardioversion, ablation, a pacemaker or

cardioverter defibrillator, and sometimes surgery.21

Ledford has had atrial fibrillation since May 2010.22  When medication

therapy failed, he underwent ablation.23  After ablation, he continued

medication therapy and returned to work, experiencing periodic

dizziness.24  According to his cardiologist, Ledford did very well.25  The

most recent treatment records indicate Ledford experiences intermittent

atrial fibrillation.26  That frequency indicates his condition is controlled

with treatment.  Agency medical experts limited him to light work based

on atrial fibrillation.

Before he lost his job, Ledford had other problems that contributed to

absenteeism — migraine headaches and diarrhea27 — but the medical

20Id. at pp. 532 & 534.

21Id. at p. 533.

22SSA record at p. 535 (emergency room visit for hear palpitations).

23Id. at p. 686.

24Id. at p. 336 (Feb. 21, 2011: he was off work for three months, but returned after

ablation, no problems since ablation), pp. 329‐31 (May 20, 2011: he has dizziness every

once in a while with some fatigue, but from atrial fibrillation point of view, he is doing

very well without significant palpitations), p. 376 (Oct. 26, 2011: he complained about

increased pulse rate, but he has been fairly well controlled with medication) & p. 317

(Apr. 9, 2012: he reports daily palpitations, but heart monitoring shows no atrial

fibrillation).

25Id. at pp. 331.

26Id. at pp. 485 & 489.

27Id. at p. 39 (identifying stomach problems as affecting him most at work).

5

Case 4:14-cv-00680-SWW Document 11 Filed 09/22/15 Page 5 of 11
evidence shows those problems can be controlled with treatment.28  As

such, those problems provide no basis for disability.

2.  The alleged onset date undermined Ledford’s credibility.  A claimant

engaging in substantial gainful activity (SGA) is not eligible for DIB.29

SGA “is work activity that is both substantial and gainful....”30  Earnings

derived from work activity is the primary consideration in determining

whether a claimant engages in SGA.31  Even part‐time work may qualify

as SGA.32

Ledford claims he has been disabled since December 1, 2011, but the

evidence shows he engaged in SGA through January 2012.33  Engaging in

SGA during a time period he claims he was disabled undermined

28Id. at p. 306 (Mar. 12, 2012: second Botox injection helped headaches for about

six weeks, will repeat today with some in neck muscles), p. 718 (Mar. 16, 2012: less

diarrhea), p. 719 (Apr. 9, 2012: diarrhea somewhat improved with Lomotil), p. 704 (June

13, 2012: increase dosage of Depakote and Botox injections have improved headaches) &

p. 485 (Nov. 15, 2012: reporting occasional diarrhea).

2920 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).  See also McCoy v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 605, 611 (8th Cir.

2011).

3020 C.F.R. § 404.1572.

3120 C.F.R. § 404.1574(a).  Earnings constituting SGA are set out in the SGA Table,

available at  http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/COLA/sga.html.

32See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1572(a) (“Substantial work activity is work activity that

involves doing significant physical or mental activities. Your work may be

substantial even if it is done on a parttime basis or if you do less, get paid less, or have

less responsibility than when you worked before.”); Burkhalter v. Schweiker, 711 F.2d 841,

844‐45 (8th Cir. 1983) (upholding the Commissioner’s regulations specifying what work

constitutes substantial gainful activity).

33SSA record at p. 224 (“Even though he missed some work, his earnings were

still over SGA in 12/11 and 01/12.”).  See id. at pp. 132‐43 & 173‐211.  Ledford worked on

and off until he was terminated in July 2012 for absenteeism, after exhausting his FMLA

leave.

6

Case 4:14-cv-00680-SWW Document 11 Filed 09/22/15 Page 6 of 11
Ledford’s credibility.  Ledford challenges the evaluation of his credibility,

but the inconsistency between his alleged onset date and his work history

weighs against his claim.34

In his first application, Ledford alleged disability beginning October 1,

2010,35 but since then, he worked full‐time as a production weigher —

working 55 hours per week.36  The unfavorable decision doesn’t

specifically mention the first alleged onset date, but the ALJ observed that

Ledford continued to work full‐time despite medical issues since that

time.37

Ledford says the ALJ should have discussed his testimony in more detail,

but the ALJ followed the required process, acknowledged Ledford’s

allegations, discussed how treatment controls his medical conditions, and

explained why the medical evidence doesn’t support the alleged degree of

severity.38  Ledford’s strong reliance on Polaski v. Heckler39 is somewhat

mis‐placed because the Commissioner’s rule for evaluating credibility

34Partee v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 860, 865 (8th Cir. 2011) (“The ALJ may discredit a

claimant based on inconsistencies in the evidence.”); Dunahoo v. Apfel, 241 F.3d 1033,

1038 (8th Cir. 2001) (“The ALJ may discount complaints of pain if they are inconsistent

with the evidence as a whole.”).

35SSA record at p. 156.

36Id. at pp. 227, 245 & 253

37Id. at pp. 17‐18.

38Id. at pp. 18‐19.

39In Polaski, the Eighth Circuit set forth for evaluating subjective allegations:

(1) the claimant’s prior work record; (2) observations by third parties and treating and

examining physicians relating to such matters as: (a) the claimant’s daily activities; (b)

the duration, frequency and intensity of the pain; (c) precipitating and aggravating

factors; (d) dosage, effectiveness and side effects of medication; and (e) functional

restrictions.  Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984).

7

Case 4:14-cv-00680-SWW Document 11 Filed 09/22/15 Page 7 of 11
includes Polaski’s guidance.40  The ALJ followed the rule.

3.  The record was fairly and fully developed.  Two agency medical

experts opined that Ledford can do light work,41 but Ledford contends

later‐acquired evidence undermines the opinions.  He claims the record

wasn’t fairly and fully developed because the agency experts did not

review the later‐acquired evidence.42

A claimant who claims the ALJ failed to adequately develop the record

bears a heavy burden; the claimant “must show both a failure to develop

necessary evidence and unfairness or prejudice from that failure.”43

Ledford can’t show unfairness or prejudice because the relevant evidence

shows nothing preventing light work.

Most of the later‐acquired evidence doesn’t address the time period for

which benefits were denied.44  Thus, that evidence provides no basis for

showing unfairness or prejudice.45

The remainder of the later‐acquired documents treatment of diarrhea,46

40See SSR 96‐7p, Policy Interpretation Ruling Titles II & XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms

in Disability Claims: Assessing the Credibility of an Individual’s Statements.

41SSA record at pp. 463 & 473.

42Landess v. Weinberger, 490 F.2d 1187, 1189 (8th Cir. 1974) (ALJ must fairly and

fully develop record as to matters at issue).

43Combs v. Astrue, 243 Fed. App’x 200, 205 (8th Cir. 2007).

44SSA record at pp. 498‐702.

45Roberson v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 1020, 1026 (8th Cir. 2007) (to be material, evidence

must relate claimant’s condition for time period for which benefits are denied).

46SSA record at p. 707 (Dec. 7, 2011: consult with gastroenterologist), p. 709

(Dec. 15, 2011: followup with gastroenterologist, work up uneventful thus far), p. 716

(Jan. 11, 2012: followup with gastroenterologist; diagnostic testing shows no evidence of

celiac disease, microscopic colitis, or inflammatory bowel disease), p. 717 (Feb. 23, 2012:

8

Case 4:14-cv-00680-SWW Document 11 Filed 09/22/15 Page 8 of 11
management of anticoagulation medication,47 and improvement in

migraines.48  It documents nothing preventing light work.

Ledford suggests the ALJ should have asked a mental health expert to

review his case, but Ledford didn’t base his claim on mental impairment;

he reported good results from a prescribed anti‐depressant.49  No need

existed for a mental health review because no evidence implicated a

severe mental impairment.50

4.  The ALJ followed the rule in considering obesity.  Ledford claims the

ALJ failed to comply with the Commissioner’s rule on obesity in

determining his ability to work, but the unfavorable decision belies the

claim.  The rule states, “An assessment should also be made of the effect

obesity has upon the individual’s ability to perform routine movement

patient stopped milk, try stopping Diet Coke and Nexium), p. 718 (Mar. 16, 2012:

stopping Nexium and milk didn’t help, decreasing Diet Coke didn’t help, cause of

diarrhea isn’t clear), p. 719 (Apr. 9, 2012: normal 24‐hour urine test, diarrhea has

improved with Lomotil, need stool study for fecal electrolytes and stool osmolality), p.

720 (May 11, 2012: stool specimen was unsatisfactory so stool study wasn’t completed,

cause not yet determined), p. 721 (May 24, 2012: cause might be food allergies or

medication related, fast for 12 hours during the day to see if diarrhea occurs, may need

further work up), p. 722 (June 25, 2012: don’t think cause is medication related, two

episodes during 12‐hour fast, try Flagyl for 10 days, if continues, will do 72‐hour fecal

fat collection or trial of pancreatic supplements) & p. 722 (July 25, 2012: no show for

visit with gastroenterologist).

47Id. at 723‐33.

48Id. at p. 704 (third Botox injection helped for about eight weeks, increased dose

of Depakote is helping, headaches improving with Botox injections).

49Id. at p. 493 (Jan. 3, 2013: anti‐depressant is working well).

50Byes v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 913, 916 (8th Cir. 2012) (“If sufficient evidence alerts the

ALJ to the possibility of a severe mental impairment, the ALJ must further develop the

record about mental impairments before ruling on the severity of the claimant’s

impairment(s).” ).

9

Case 4:14-cv-00680-SWW Document 11 Filed 09/22/15 Page 9 of 11
and necessary physical activity within the work environment.”51  The

following statement reflects the assessment: “The evidence does not show

that the condition limits the claimant’s walking, standing, and lifting, or

have adverse effects on other body systems.”52  Ledford’s doctors

recommended weight loss, but no evidence suggests obesity interferes

with his ability to perform routine movement and necessary physical

activity within the work environment.

5.  Vocational evidence supports the decision.  After determining the

claimant’s ability to work, the ALJ determines whether the claimant can

do his past work.53  To do so, the ALJ consults a vocational expert or

another resource like the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT).54  A

vocational expert may offer relevant evidence about the demands of the

claimant’s past work, “either as the claimant actually performed it or as

generally performed in the national economy.”55

In this case, the ALJ questioned a vocational expert about Ledford’s past

work.  According the vocational expert, the DOT classifies Ledford’s past

jobs — machine operator and production weigher — as medium work,

but Ledford performed the production weigher job as light work.  Light

work is consistent with the ALJ’s determination about Ledford’s ability to

work.

Ledford relies on his agency pleadings56 to argue that he worked at a

higher exertional level, but Ledford’s testimony was clear.  When asked

about the lifting requirement of his job as a machine operator as compared

to his job as a production weigher, Ledford testified, “I didn’t probably lift

51SSR 02‐1p, Pol’y Interpretation Ruling Titles II & XVI: Evaluation of Obesity ¶ 8.

52SSA record at p. 15.

5320 C.F.R. § 404.1560.

54Id.

55Id.

56SSA record at pp. 227, 245 & 254.

10

Case 4:14-cv-00680-SWW Document 11 Filed 09/22/15 Page 10 of 11
over 10 pounds.”57  This testimony indicates earlier reports of lifting more

weight applied to his job as a machine operator.

According to the vocational expert, the production weigher job is

“classified as medium, but [Ledford] described in his particular situation

it was less than that by quite a bit. ... So he performed it at the light level

even though the DOT lists them at a medium level”58  This explanation

indicates Ledford can work as a production weigher as he actually

performed it.  The evidence supports the decision.

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.  The record shows nothing

preventing past work.  The ALJ made no harmful legal error.  For these reasons, the

undersigned magistrate judge recommends DENYING Ledford’s request for relief

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

Dated this 22nd day of September, 2015.

____________________________________

United States Magistrate Judge

57Id. at p. 32.

58Id. at pp. 32‐33.

11

Case 4:14-cv-00680-SWW Document 11 Filed 09/22/15 Page 11 of 11