Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_14-cv-00179/USCOURTS-ared-3_14-cv-00179-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 865
Nature of Suit: Social Security - RSI (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:427 Social Security Benefits

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

Margaret McKinney Plaintiff

v. CASE NO. 3:14CV00179 JTK

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner,

Social Security Administration Defendant

ORDER AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER

Margaret McKinney seeks judicial review of the denial of her application for disability

insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI). McKinney applied for DIB

and SSI in July 2011, with an alleged onset date of June 27, 2011.1 McKinney last worked parttime in 2012 as an assistant director at a daycare.2

 She bases disability on congestive heart

failure, diabetes and high blood pressure.3

The Commissioner’s decision. The Commissioner’s ALJ determined that McKinney has

not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date.4 McKinney has severe

impairments - cardiomyopathy, diabetes, hypertension and obesity.5 None of McKinney’s severe

impairments meet the Listings, and McKinney can perform a full range of sedentary work.6 The

ALJ held that McKinney can perform her past relevant work as an office clerk/account

1

SSA record at pp. 117 & 126.

2

Id. at pp. 35-36, 44 & 167. 

3

Id. at p. 166. 

4

Id. at p. 15. 

5

Id. 

6

Id. at pp. 16-17.

Case 3:14-cv-00179-JTK Document 12 Filed 05/13/15 Page 1 of 10
technician and office coordinator, as these positions do not require the performance of workrelated activities precluded by the RFC.7

 McKinney’s application was denied.8 

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

decision became a final decision for judicial review.9

 McKinney filed this case to challenge the

decision. In reviewing the decision, the Court must determine whether substantial evidence

supports the decision and whether the ALJ made a legal error.10

McKinney’s allegations. McKinney maintains that the ALJ’s denial of disability

benefits should be reversed because (1) the ALJ erred in determining that McKinney’s

impairments do not meet the Listings; (2) the RFC is not supported by substantial evidence; (3)

the ALJ did not fully and fairly develop the record; (4) the ALJ erred in failing to present a

hypothetical to the VE; and (5) the ALJ erred in determining that McKinney can return to her

past relevant work. These arguments are not persuasive. No error occurred, and the ALJ’s

decision to deny benefits is supported by substantial evidence.

7

Id. at p. 22.

8

Id. at p. 23. 

9

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 appeal procedure permits claimants to appeal only

final decisions). 

10See 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 any 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.”).

2

Case 3:14-cv-00179-JTK Document 12 Filed 05/13/15 Page 2 of 10
Substantial evidence is “less than a preponderance but . . . enough that a reasonable mind

would find it adequate to support the conclusion.”11 For substantial evidence to exist in this case,

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

McKinney is not disabled.12

The Listings. It appears that McKinney maintains she meets one of the cardiovascular

system listings. In her brief, however, McKinney does not present specific evidence to support

her assertion that the criteria of one of the listings are satisfied. It is McKinney’s burden to prove

that her conditions meet or equal all of the specified medical criteria in a listing.13 She has not

met that burden. Her argument is not persuasive. 

RFC. McKinney argues that the RFC is not supported by substantial evidence. As stated

above, the ALJ determined that McKinney is capable of performing the full range of sedentary

work.14 The RFC is supported by substantial evidence. 

Although McKinney has consistently been treated for cardiomyopathy,15 the evidence

establishes that it has improved with treatment. In 2010 McKinney reported ongoing chest pain,

11Jones v. Astrue, 619 F.3d 963, 968 (8th Cir. 2010) (internal quotations and citations

omitted). 

12See Britton v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 328, 330 (8th Cir. 1990). 

13See McCoy v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 605, 611 (8th Cir. 2011). 

14SSA record at p. 16.

15“Cardiomyopathy is a chronic disease of the heart muscle (myocardium), in which the

muscle is abnormally enlarged, thickened, and/or stiffened. The weakened heart muscle loses the

ability to pump blood effectively, resulting in irregular heartbeats (arrhyth-mias) and possibly

even heart failure.” Judith Sims, 2 The Gale Encyclopedia of Med. 856 (4th ed.). 

3

Case 3:14-cv-00179-JTK Document 12 Filed 05/13/15 Page 3 of 10
shortness of breath and fatigue.16 She underwent an echocardiogram, and it was determined that

she had an ejection fraction of 25%.17, 18 McKinney was treated with multiple medications, and

three months later reported no chest pain, shortness of breath or fatigue.19 She was “feeling much

better,” and her ejection fraction had increased to 45%.20 Nine months later, in April 2011, her

treating physician noted that she was “doing well in regard to cardiomyopathy.”21 In August

2011 another echocardiogram was performed.22 Mild mitral regurgitation, mild tricuspid

regurgitation and a normal ejection fraction of 60-65% were observed.23 McKinney reported

shortness of breath and some weakness and dizziness with quick movements, but no fatigue or

chest pain.24 In January 2012, after reporting palpitations, McKinney wore a Holter monitor for

24 hours.25, 26 No abnormalities, however, were identified and her palpitations resolved.27 Nine

16SSA record at pp. 356 & 362. 

17Id. at p. 365. 

18“The volume of blood pumped out of the ventricle is called the ejection fraction (EF).

In a healthy heart, the EF is greater than 50%, while in people with CHF [congestive heart

failure], it is less than 50% and can be as low as 30%.” Tish Davidson & Laura Jean Cataldo, 2

The Gale Encyclopedia of Med. 1143 (4th ed.).

19SSA record at p. 294. 

20Id. at pp. 269 & 293. 

21Id. at p. 264. 

22Id. at p. 280. 

23Id. at p. 281. 

24Id. at pp. 277-278. 

25Id. at p. 392. 

26“Holter monitoring is continuous monitoring of the electrical activity of a patient’s

heart muscle (electrocardiography) for 24 hours, using a special portable device called a Holter

4

Case 3:14-cv-00179-JTK Document 12 Filed 05/13/15 Page 4 of 10
months later McKinney reported no chest pain or palpitations.28 Her cardiovascular physical

exam was normal.29 Impairments that are controlled with treatment are not disabling.30

McKinney’s diabetes has also improved with treatment. In April 2011, after presenting to

the emergency room with a glucose level of 582 and a hemoglobin A1c of 11, it was determined

that McKinney has type II diabetes.31, 32 She was treated with insulin and a prescription diabetes

medication.33 In August 2012, improvement in her blood sugar and diabetes was noted.34

McKinney’s glucose was 102 mg/dl - slightly higher than the normal range - and her hemoglobin

A1c was 5.6.35 Two months later McKinney’s glucose was 59 - lower than the normal range -

and hemoglobin A1c was 5.2.36 In February 2013, McKinney’s glucose was 70 mg/dl - within

monitor. Patients wear the Holter monitor while carrying out their usual daily activities.” Robert

Scott Dinsmoor, 3 The Gale Encyclopedia of Med. 2137 (4th ed.). 

27SSA record at pp. 342 & 382. 

28Id. at p. 383. 

29Id. at p. 384. 

30Estes v. Barnhart, 275 F.3d 722, 725 (8th Cir. 2002). 

31SSA record at pp. 227 & 229.

32Hemoglobin A1c levels measure “how much sugar has been in a person’s blood during

the past two to four months. It is used to monitor the effectiveness of diabetes treatment.” Nancy

J. Nordenson & Teresa G. Odle, 3 The Gale Encyclopedia of Med. 1910 (4th ed.). Normal

hemoglobin A1c levels are between 4.0-6.0%. Id. at p. 1911. 

33SSA record at pp. 263-264 & 287. 

34Id. at p. 341. 

35Id. at pp. 339-340. 

36Id. at pp. 385-386. 

5

Case 3:14-cv-00179-JTK Document 12 Filed 05/13/15 Page 5 of 10
the normal range - and her hemoglobin A1c was 5.3.37 The ongoing treatment of McKinney’s

diabetes has been successful. Further, the records are void of any evidence of complications

associated with McKinney’s diabetes. 

During the hearing, McKinney placed great emphasis on her fatigue and weakness.38 She

maintains that her fatigue and weakness are disabling and therefore prevent her from working.

The records, however, do not support this allegation and the RFC adequately takes McKinney’s

fatigue and weakness into account. In the records McKinney occasionally complains of fatigue

and weakness.39 The strongest complaints of fatigue come in the appointment with her treating

physician one month following the hearing.40 There are, however, almost an equal number of

treatment notes in which she states that she has no fatigue and/or weakness.41 Further, there are

large periods of time during which McKinney does not mention fatigue at all, and none of

McKinney’s physicians ever diagnose her with any impairments related to fatigue. The evidence

does not establish that McKinney’s fatigue and weakness are disabling. 

McKinney has been diagnosed with high blood pressure and is obese.42 She has

consistently been treated with prescription medication for her high blood pressure. Although her

37Id. at pp. 373 & 376. 

38To the extent that McKinney argues the ALJ did not take her fatigue into account when

determining the RFC, this Court is not persuaded. The ALJ discussed McKinney’s fatigue

throughout the decision. 

39SSA record at pp. 287, 289, 362 & 378. 

40Id. at p. 378.

41Id. at pp. 278, 294 & 383. 

42Id. at p. 364. 

6

Case 3:14-cv-00179-JTK Document 12 Filed 05/13/15 Page 6 of 10
blood pressure fluctuates throughout the medical records, it was most recently recorded at

136/60.43 There is no evidence of end organ damage or other complications associated with high

blood pressure. Additionally, although McKinney is obese, there is nothing in the record

suggesting her obesity is disabling. The RFC adequately takes McKinney’s high blood pressure

and obesity into account. 

The opinions of the state physicians lend even more support for the RFC with respect to

all of McKinney’s impairments. In the Physical Residual Functional Capacity Assessment, a

state physician determined that McKinney can occasionally lift/carry twenty pounds, frequently

lift/carry ten pounds, stand/walk six hours in an eight hour workday and sit six hours in an eight

hour workday.44 This assessment is less restrictive than the assigned RFC. A second state

physician affirmed the conclusions in November 2011.45

McKinney’s reported daily activities also support the assigned RFC. In the Function

Report, McKinney states that she is able to do some housework, laundry, prepare meals and tend

to her personal needs without aid.46 She goes outside twice a day, can drive a car, goes out alone

and shops in stores for groceries.47 McKinney spends about four hours a day with others, and

43Id. at p. 378. 

44Id. at p. 298. 

45Id. at p. 317. 

46Id. at pp. 186-188. 

47Id. at p. 189. 

7

Case 3:14-cv-00179-JTK Document 12 Filed 05/13/15 Page 7 of 10
attends church twice a week.48 Additionally, for approximately a year after the alleged onset

date, McKinney worked part-time at a daycare, performing administrative duties.49 

A reasonable mind would accept the evidence as adequate to support the ALJ’s RFC

determination. The RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence. 

Record development. McKinney asserts that the ALJ erred in failing to fully and fairly

develop the record. This argument is not persuasive. 

It is the responsibility of the ALJ to “fully and fairly develop the evidentiary record.”50

“Failing to develop the record is reversible error when it does not contain enough evidence to

determine the impact of a claimant’s impairment on his ability to work.”51 “While an ALJ does

have a duty to develop the record, this duty is not never-ending. . . . The ALJ is required to order

medical examinations and tests only if the medical records presented to him do not give

sufficient medical evidence to determine whether the claimant is disabled.”52

Multiple medical records - reviewed above - were submitted by McKinney with her

application. These records span almost three years, and include progress notes from McKinney’s

treating physicians and local hospital. Diagnostic testing reports - a CT, x-ray, echocardiograms,

cardiac catheterization, and blood counts - are also presented. In addition to the medical records

presented by McKinney, the record contains assessments and evaluations conducted by state

48Id. at p. 190. 

49Id. at pp. 35-40 & 186.

50Byes v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 913, 915-916 (8th Cir. 2012). 

51Id. at 916. 

52McCoy v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 605, 612 (8th Cir. 2011) (internal citations omitted). 

8

Case 3:14-cv-00179-JTK Document 12 Filed 05/13/15 Page 8 of 10
physicians. Taken together, these documents present a complete picture of McKinney’s health

and her ability to complete work-like tasks. No further development was necessary. 

Hypothetical. McKinney maintains that the ALJ erred because he did not present a

complete hypothetical to the VE. This argument, however, is not persuasive because the ALJ

was not required to solicit VE testimony in determining that McKinney can perform her past

relevant work.53

Past relevant work. McKinney asserts that the ALJ erred in determining that McKinney

can perform her past relevant work. The dispositive question is whether the determination is

supported by substantial evidence. A review of the record reveals that it is. 

Although not necessary, the ALJ questioned the VE with respect to McKinney’s past

relevant work as a legal assistant and assistant director at a daycare.54 The VE identified these

positions as office clerk/account technician and office coordinator, respectively.55 Both were

placed in the sedentary exertional category.56 After determining, with the support of substantial

evidence, that McKinney is capable of sedentary work, the ALJ held that McKinney can perform

the past relevant work of officer clerk/account technician and office coordinator.57 A reasonable

mind would find this evidence adequate to support the determination that McKinney can perform

past relevant work. It is supported by substantial evidence. 

53Banks v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 820, 827 (8th Cir. 2001) (testimony from a vocational

expert is not required at step four). 

54SSA record at pp. 51-52. 

55Id. at p. 51. 

56Id. at pp. 51-52. 

57Id. at p. 22. 

9

Case 3:14-cv-00179-JTK Document 12 Filed 05/13/15 Page 9 of 10
Conclusion. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. No legal error occurred.

For these reasons, the court DENIES McKinney’s request for relief (docket entry # 1) and

AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s decision. 

It is so ordered this 13th day of May, 2015. 

____________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

10

Case 3:14-cv-00179-JTK Document 12 Filed 05/13/15 Page 10 of 10