Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_14-cv-00656/USCOURTS-ared-4_14-cv-00656-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 865
Nature of Suit: Social Security - RSI (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:0405 Review of HHS Decision

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

RONNIE WAYNE ANDERSON, JR. PLAINTIFF

v. No. 4:14–CV–656-JLH–BD

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner,

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

Recommended Disposition

Instructions

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

Leon Holmes. Mr. Anderson may file written objections to this recommendation. 

Objections must be specific and state the factual 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 An 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 Holmes can 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).

2Griffini 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-00656-JLH Document 9 Filed 08/05/15 Page 1 of 10
Reasoning for Recommended Disposition

Ronnie Wayne Anderson Jr. seeks judicial review of the denial of his application

for supplemental security income (SSI).3

 In November 2004, Mr. Anderson sustained a

substantial injury to his right ankle. At that time, he was 24 years old. The injury

served as the basis for awarding disability benefits until August 2006.4

 That time

coincides with the date he reached maximum medical improvement for the purpose of

his workers compensation claim.5

Mr. Anderson claims he has been disabled since his injury, but a claimant is not

eligible for SSI before applying.6 As a result, this case considers whether Mr. Anderson

was disabled beginning September 14, 2011. Mr. Anderson based disability on his right

ankle, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and an unspecified kidney problem.7

3

SSA record at p. 146 (applying on Sept. 14, 2011 and alleging disability

beginning Nov. 2, 2004).

4The record does not specify the dates for the award, but Mr. Anderson reported

payments from the time of his injury until August 2006. Docket entry # 7, p. 4.

5

SSA record at p. 379.

6Because SSI benefits are not payable prior to the date of application, the claimant

must prove that he was disabled as of or subsequent to the protective filing date of his

application. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.335; Cruse v. Bowen, 867 F.2d 1183, 1185 (8th Cir. 1989).

7

SSA record at p. 165.

2

Case 4:14-cv-00656-JLH Document 9 Filed 08/05/15 Page 2 of 10
The Commissioner’s decision. After considering the application, the

Commissioner’s ALJ determined that Mr. Anderson had severe impairments,8but that

he could do a limited range of sedentary work.9

 Because a vocational expert identified

available jobs for a person with Mr. Anderson’s limitations,10 the ALJ determined that

Mr. Anderson was not disabled and denied the application.11

After the Commissioner’s Appeals Council denied a request for review,12 the

decision became a final decision for judicial review.13

 Mr. Anderson filed this case to

challenge the decision.14 In reviewing the decision, the court must determine whether

8

Id. at p. 12 (identifying history of right ankle distal tibia/fibula fracture, status

post open reduction internal fixation of right fibula and application of external fixator

for right lower tibia, and right ankle distal tibia and fibula hardware removal, right

deep peroneal nerve release, and right anterior tibial tendon debridement;

hypertension; and pure hypercholesterolemia as severe impairments).

9

Id. at pp. 13-14.

10

Id. at pp. 94-95.

11

Id. at p. 24.

12

Id. at p. 1.

13

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

14Docket entry # 1.

3

Case 4:14-cv-00656-JLH Document 9 Filed 08/05/15 Page 3 of 10
substantial evidence supports the decision and whether the ALJ made a legal error.

15

This recommendation explains why substantial evidence supports the decision and why

the ALJ made no legal error.

Mr. Anderson’s allegations. Mr. Anderson challenges the determination that he

could work. He says his doctor’s medical questionnaire deserved controlling weight. 

He complains about the evaluation of his credibility. He also asserts that the ALJ’s

hypothetical question omitted imitations his doctor reported. For these reasons, he

maintains, substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s decision.16

Applicable legal principles. For substantial evidence to support the decision, a

reasonable mind must accept the evidence as adequate to show Mr. Anderson could do

some sedentary work. Sedentary work “involves lifting no more than 10 pounds at a

time and occasionally lifting or carrying articles like docket files, ledgers, and small

15

See 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.”).

16Docket entry # 7.

4

Case 4:14-cv-00656-JLH Document 9 Filed 08/05/15 Page 4 of 10
tools.”17

 In addition to limiting Mr. Anderson to sedentary work, the ALJ added other

limitations: 

(1) simple, routine, repetitive tasks with simple, direct, concrete

supervision,

(2) level surfaces for walking, and 

(3) no more than occasional stooping, crouching, crawling, kneeling,

bending, and balancing.18

For substantial evidence to exist, a reasonable mind must accept the evidence as

adequate to show Mr. Anderson could work within these limits. 

1. Medical evidence implicates nothing 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 

Mr. Anderson’s surgeon described the ankle fracture as a “terrible

injury.”20 The injury occurred when a load of sheet rock fell on the ankle,

fracturing two bones. An orthopedic surgeon set the bones using fixation

hardware.21

 After the fractures healed and the hardware was removed,22

 a

17

20 C.F.R. § 416.967(a).

18

SSA record at pp. 13-14.

19

SSR 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.

20

SSA record at p. 386.

21

Id. at p. 260.

22

Id. at pp. 262 & 388.

5

Case 4:14-cv-00656-JLH Document 9 Filed 08/05/15 Page 5 of 10
functional capacity evaluation indicated that Mr. Anderson could do

medium work involving occasional balancing and kneeling.23 Despite the

rating, the surgeon recommended sedentary work and predicted that Mr.

Anderson might need a fusion-type procedure in the far future.24 Per the

surgeon, “he is a young man and still capable of future skills and

employment.”25

Mr. Anderson claims his ankle has prevented him from working since his

injury, but treatment records contain probative gaps. After his surgeon

released him from care, Mr. Anderson sought no treatment for 56

months.26 Although lacking medical insurance, the lack of treatment

suggests no disabling limitation.

The first evidence of treatment is a May 2011 visit to a family practice

clinic.27 Mr. Anderson complained about ankle pain. Diagnostic testing

showed Mr. Anderson had high blood pressure and high cholesterol. 

Treatment focused on genital warts and weight management.28

23

Id. at p. 393-94.

24

Id. at p. 380.

25

Id. at p. 379.

26Compare id. at p. 379 (released from medical care on Aug. 9, 2006) with id. at

p. 410 (next medical visit on May 3, 2011).

27

Id. at pp. 410-11.

28

Id. at pp. 410-11 (May 3, 2011: complaining about persistent right lower leg pain

and increased lesions on right groin area; prescribing medication for genital warts,

recommending over-the-counter nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug for pain, and

discussing effect of weight on hips, knees, and ankles and need for diet and exercise),

pp. 412-13 (May 11, 2011: following up on lab work; recommending over-the-counter

pain reliever to avoid kidney damage and emphasizing importance of weight loss,

smoking cessation, and medication compliance) & p. 414-15 (May 18, 2011: following up

on hypertension; referring patient to orthopedist for right ankle).

6

Case 4:14-cv-00656-JLH Document 9 Filed 08/05/15 Page 6 of 10
The following year, Mr. Anderson obtained Medicaid coverage. In May

2012, he returned to the family practice clinic and complained about

increased ankle pain. The right ankle was swollen and tender. Treatment

recommendations remained the same, but the doctor prescribed a stronger

pain reliever.

29

 The doctor provided a requested referral for an

orthopedist, but the record reflects no orthopedic consult. Failing to

consult an orthopedist suggests no disabling pain.

2. Treatment records document no limitations in functions needed for

sedentary work. The right ankle impaired Mr. Anderson’s ability to walk

and stand, but sedentary work involves mostly sitting. “Most unskilled

sedentary jobs require good use of the hands and fingers for repetitive

hand-finger actions.”30

 Treatment records show no basis for limitations in

sitting or using the hands or fingers. 

 

3. Gaps in treatment history undermine Mr. Anderson’s credibility. An

ALJ must evaluate the claimant’s credibility before determining the

claimant’s ability to work,31 but can “discount complaints of pain if they

are inconsistent with the evidence as a whole.”32

 Mr. Anderson claims

ankle pain has prevented him from working since November 2004, but he

sought little treatment. Mr. Anderson visited the family practice clinic five

29

Id. at pp. 444-45 (May 1, 2012: complaining about heartburn and side, back and

ankle pain; refilling medication for high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and

heartburn, and prescribing narcotic pain medication on as-needed basis) & pp. 442-43

(May 15, 2012: asking doctor to complete form for disability claim; refilling prescriptions

for narcotic pain reliever, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, heartburn and genital

warts).

30

SSR 83-10, Titles II & XVI: Determining Capability to Do Other Work -- The

Medical-Vocational Rules of Appendix 2.

31Ellis v. Barnhart, 392 F.3d 988, 995-96 (8th Cir. 2005).

32Dunahoo v. Apfel, 241 F.3d 1033, 1038 (8th Cir. 2001).

7

Case 4:14-cv-00656-JLH Document 9 Filed 08/05/15 Page 7 of 10
times during the 19 months for which benefits were denied.33

 A

reasonable mind would expect a person with disabling pain to seek more

frequent medical treatment.34

4. Vocational evidence supports the decision. Mr. Anderson claims the

ALJ omitted some of his limitations from the hypothetical question.

A hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert is

sufficient if it sets forth impairments supported by

substantial evidence in the record and accepted as true. The

hypothetical question must capture the concrete

consequences of the claimant’s deficiencies.35

33

SSA record at pp. 444-45 (May 1, 2012: complaining about heartburn and side,

back and ankle pain; refilling medication for high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and

heartburn, and prescribing narcotic pain medication on as-needed basis), pp. 442-43

(May 15, 2012: asking doctor to complete form for disability claim; refilling prescriptions

for narcotic pain reliever, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, heartburn and genital

warts), pp. 440-41 (Aug. 28, 2012: following up on high blood pressure, seeking

medication refills, and complaining about back pain; providing medication refills and

recommending diet and exercise), pp. 438-39 (Oct. 2, 2012: complaining about back and

leg pain; refilling pain medication and educating patient on blood pressure

management and diet) & pp. 435-36 (Dec. 18, 2012: complaining about right leg pain

and asking for orthopedic referral; refilling medications for high blood pressure,

cholesterol, heartburn, and chronic pain).

34Gwathney v. Chater, 104 F.3d 1043, 1045 (8th Cir. 1997) (failing to seek medical

assistance for alleged physical and mental impairments contradicted claimant’s

allegations of disabling conditions and supported unfavorable decision); Ostronski v.

Chater, 94 F.3d 413, 419 (8th Cir. 1996) (complaints of disabling pain and functional

limitations are inconsistent with the failure to take prescription pain medication or to

seek regular medical treatment for symptoms); Rautio v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 176, 179 (8th

Cir. 1988) (“A failure to seek aggressive treatment is not suggestive of disabling back

pain.”).

35Perkins v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 892, 901-02 (8th Cir. 2011).

8

Case 4:14-cv-00656-JLH Document 9 Filed 08/05/15 Page 8 of 10
Mr. Anderson relies on a treating physician’s medical questionnaire,36

 but

the ALJ properly rejected reported limitations as unsupported.37 The

physician documented no serious functional limitation preventing

sedentary work.38 According to the physician, “His deformed right leg

with frequent pain limit his ability to do physical work and his capacity to

learn mentally is poor.”

39

 

The ALJ was not persuaded by the reported limitations,40 but responded

to the physician’s description by limiting Mr. Anderson to sedentary work

involving level walking surfaces; limiting stooping, crouching, crawling,

kneeling, bending, and balancing; and requiring simple, routine, repetitive

tasks. The limitations captured the concrete consequences of the ankle

injury and any limitation in learning.

When asked about sedentary work for a person with Mr. Anderson’s

limitations, the vocational expert identified production assemblers like

lampshade assembler, document preparer, and surveillance monitor as

representative jobs.41

 The vocational evidence shows work exits that

Mr. Anderson could do, regardless of whether such work exists where he

36

SSA record at p. 430.

37Dolph v. Barnhart, 308 F.3d 876, 878-79 (8th Cir. 2002) (“Under the

Commissioner’s regulations, a treating physician’s opinion is given ‘controlling weight’

if it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic

techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.’ Accordingly, an

ALJ should ‘give good reasons’ for discounting a treating physician’s opinion.”).

38

SSA record at p. 442 (“Extremities deformities in right lower leg, swollen

around the right ankle, old well healed surgical scar over the medial aspect, tender

spots on the distal medial aspect of the right leg and around the ankle.”).

39

Id. at p. 431.

40

Id. at p. 21 (“This treating physician’s opinion has been considered but, in view

of the overall record, was found not to be persuasive.”).

41

Id. at pp. 94-95.

9

Case 4:14-cv-00656-JLH Document 9 Filed 08/05/15 Page 9 of 10
lives, whether a job vacancy exists, or whether he would be hired if he

applied for work.42

Age played an important role in the ALJ’s conclusion. In general, a

younger individual such as Mr. Anderson43 possesses “sufficient

occupational mobility to adapt to the major segment of unskilled

sedentary work.”44 Sedentary work represents a significantly restricted

range of work, but it “is not so prohibitively restricted as to negate work

capability for substantial gainful activity.”45

Conclusion and Recommendation

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. The ALJ made no legal error. 

For these reasons, the undersigned magistrate judge recommends DENYING

Mr. Anderson’s request for relief (docket entry # 1) and AFFIRMING the

Commissioner’s decision.

Dated this 5th day of August, 2015.

____________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

42

42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(B).

43Mr. Anderson was 31 years old when he applied for SSI.

44

20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2, § 201.00(c).

45

Id. at § 201.00(b).

10

Case 4:14-cv-00656-JLH Document 9 Filed 08/05/15 Page 10 of 10