Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_14-cv-00100/USCOURTS-ared-2_14-cv-00100-0/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)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

EASTERN DIVISION

JOHN AARON KNOX PLAINTIFF

v. No. 2:14–CV–100-BSM–BD

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner,

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

Instructions

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

Brian S. Miller. 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 Miller can

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).

1

Case 2:14-cv-00100-BSM Document 18 Filed 06/03/15 Page 1 of 10
adopt the recommended disposition without independently reviewing all of the record 

evidence.

Reasoning for Recommended Disposition

John Aaron Knox seeks judicial review of the denial of his application for social

security disability benefits.3

 Mr. Knox claims he has been disabled since March 10, 2011,

when he lost his job as a grain dryer operator. Mr. Knox based disability on diabetes,

high blood pressure, high cholesterol, right shoulder pain, low back pain, neuropathy in

the legs, and blackout spells.4 Mr. Knox underwent right-shoulder surgery in

November 2011.5 He then applied for disability benefits. 

The Commissioner’s decision. After considering Mr. Knox’s application, the

Commissioner’s ALJ determined that Mr. Knox has severe impairments — right

shoulder pain status post open reduction and internal fixation, diabetes mellitus,

obesity, right hip arthritis, and hypertension6 — but that he could do some light work.7

3

SSA record at p. 138 (applying on Dec. 13, 2011 and alleging disability beginning

Mar. 10, 2011).

4

Id. at p. 155.

5

Id. at p. 241.

6

Id. at p. 56.

7

Id. at p. 58 (placing the following limitations on light work: (1) no unprotected

heights or climbing ladders, ropes or scaffolds; (2) no overhead reaching with the right

arm; (3) occasional reaching with the right arm; (4) no lifting more than 10 pounds with

2

Case 2:14-cv-00100-BSM Document 18 Filed 06/03/15 Page 2 of 10
Because a vocational expert identified cashier II as representative, available work,8

 the

ALJ determined that Mr. Knox was not disabled and denied the application.9

After the Commissioner’s Appeals Council denied a request for review,10 the

ALJ’s decision became a final decision for judicial review.11 Mr. Knox 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 identifies a legal error and explains why this case must be

remanded to the Commissioner for vocational evidence.

the right arm; and (5) work allowing the worker to sit for 10 minutes after

standing/walking for one hour).

8

Id. at pp. 44-48 (identifying cashier II).

9

Id. at p. 65.

10

Id. at p. 1.

11

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).

12Docket entry # 1.

13See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (requiring district court to determine whether

Commissioner’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether

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

(8th Cir. 1997) (court will uphold decision if it isn’t based on legal error and substantial

evidence in the record as a whole supports conclusion that claimant isn’t disabled).

3

Case 2:14-cv-00100-BSM Document 18 Filed 06/03/15 Page 3 of 10
Mr. Knox’s allegations. Mr. Knox challenges two aspects of the ALJ’s decision:

(1) the assessment of his credibility and (2) the determination that work exists that he

could do.14

 Mr. Knox claims he has little use of his right arm since shoulder surgery. 

He maintains that the ALJ failed to consider that he is right-hand dominant. He says

working as a cashier exceeds his ability to reach with his right arm. According to Mr.

Knox, there are insufficient cashier II jobs to meet the Commissioner’s burden to show

work exists that he can do. For these reasons, he argues, substantial evidence does not

support the decision.

Applicable legal principles. Mr. Knox’s argument implicates steps four and five

of the disability-determination process.

At step four, the ALJ determines whether the claimant retains the

“residual functional capacity” (RFC) to perform his ... past relevant work. 

If the claimant remains able to perform that past relevant work, he is not

entitled to disability ... benefits. If he is not capable of performing past

relevant work, the ALJ proceeds to step five and considers whether there

exist work opportunities in the national economy that the claimant can

perform given his ... medical impairments, age, education, past work

experience, and RFC. If the Commissioner demonstrates that such work

exists, the claimant is not entitled to disability ... benefits.15

Substantial evidence supports the credibility assessment. To determine a

claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must first assess the claimant’s credibility because allegations

14Docket entry # 15.

15McCoy v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 605, 611 (8th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted).

4

Case 2:14-cv-00100-BSM Document 18 Filed 06/03/15 Page 4 of 10
play a role in determining RFC.16

 To assess Mr. Knox’s credibility, the ALJ followed the

required two-step process and considered the required factors.17

 The court must decide

whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s credibility assessment.

Inconsistent statements support the credibility assessment. The ALJ may

discount the claimant’s subjective complaints if there are inconsistencies in the record as

a whole.18 Mr. Knox’s challenge centers on limited use of the right arm. Mr. Knox

dislocated his shoulder in November 2011.19

 A few weeks later, he underwent surgery

for fixation of hardware to repair his injury.20 Afterward, Mr. Knox complained to his

primary care physician (PCP) about right-shoulder pain,21 but he did not mention his

right shoulder to the mental diagnostic examiner. Instead, he identified diabetes and

hypertension as his reasons for disability.22

 Failing to mention his right shoulder is

inconsistent with his allegations.

16

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

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

17

Id.

18Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984).

19

SSA record at p. 257.

20

Id. at p. 241.

21

Id. at p. 253 (Dec. 30, 2011) , p. 294 (Mar. 30, 2012), p. 353 (June 13, 2012), p. 347

(Aug. 29, 2012), p. 339 Dec. 19, 2012) & p. 334 (Jan. 31, 2013).

22

Id. at p. 310 (July 9, 2012).

5

Case 2:14-cv-00100-BSM Document 18 Filed 06/03/15 Page 5 of 10
Mr. Knox claims he experiences disabling shoulder pain, but his PCP prescribed

little treatment.23

 The prescribed treatment is inconsistent with the alleged pain and

limitation.

Mr. Knox testified that he last worked in March 2011, but in July 2012, he told the

mental examiner that he worked part-time remodeling houses.24

 Mr. Knox would need

his right arm to remodel houses because he is right-hand dominant. Treatment notes

indicate that Mr. Knox worked part-time during times he says he could not, and did

not, work.25 Working part-time is inconsistent with his allegations.

Mr. Knox hurt his shoulder in November 2011, but he included the right

shoulder as one of his reasons for disability beginning March 2011. The time of the

injury is inconsistent with the alleged onset date.

This case needs additional vocational evidence to satisfy step five. At step five,

the Commissioner determines whether work exists in the national economy that the

23

Id. at pp. 253-55 (Dec. 30, 2011, no treatment), pp. 296-97 (Jan. 18, 2012,

nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and smoking cessation), pp. 294-95 (Mar. 30, 2012,

different nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and something for sleeping), pp. 353-56

(June 13, 2012, no treatment), pp. 347-50 (Aug. 29, 2012, return to orthopedist), pp. 344-

46 (Sept. 12, 2012, no treatment), pp. 339-43 (Dec. 19, 2012, range of motion exercises) &

pp. 334-35 (Jan. 31, 2013, return to orthopedist).

24

Id. at p. 310.

25

Id. at p. 354 (June 12, 2012), p. 348 (Aug. 29, 2012), p. 345 (Sept. 12, 2012) &

p. 337 (Jan. 4, 2013).

6

Case 2:14-cv-00100-BSM Document 18 Filed 06/03/15 Page 6 of 10
claimant could do.26

 For claimants like Mr. Knox, who have non-exertional limitations,

the ALJ must consult a vocational expert

27

 to determine “whether jobs exist for a person

with the claimant’s precise disabilities.”28 Under the Commissioner’s regulation, the

ALJ must ask the vocational expert for a reasonable explanation ”for any ‘apparent

unresolved conflict’ between vocational expert testimony and the Dictionary of

Occupational Titles (DOT), before relying on the testimony in determining whether the

claimant is disabled.”29

An apparent unresolved conflict exists in this case. The conflict flowed from

the ALJ’s limitations on using the right arm; i.e., no overhead reaching and occasional

other reaching.30

 When the ALJ asked the vocational expert about available work for a

person with these limitations, the vocational expert identified cashier II.31 Identifying

cashier II created an apparent conflict with the DOT, because the Selected

Characteristics of Occupations Defined in the Revised Dictionary of Occupational Titles

26

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4).

27

Johnston v. Shalala, 42 F.3d 448, 452 (8th Cir. 1994); Stewart v. Shalala, 957 F.2d

581, 586 (8th Cir. 1992).

28Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 694 n.1 (8th Cir. 1980).

29

SSR 00-4p, Titles II & XVI: Use of Vocational Expert & Vocational Specialist

Evidence, & Other Reliable Occupational Information in Disability Decisions.

30

SSA record at p. 58.

31

Id. at pp. 43-44.

7

Case 2:14-cv-00100-BSM Document 18 Filed 06/03/15 Page 7 of 10
(SCO) — a DOT companion publication — lists frequent reaching as a physical

requirement for cashier II,32

 and defines reaching as “[e]xtending hand(s) and arm(s) in

any direction.”33 The ALJ addressed the possibility of a conflict by asking the vocational

expert about consistency with the DOT and its companion publications, but under

Eighth Circuit case law, that is not enough to resolve the conflict. 

Although a particular job’s requirements may be more or less than the SCO’s

listed requirements,34the SCO’s reaching requirements served as the basis of two recent

Eighth Circuit remands.35 In both cases, the ALJ limited the claimant’s ability to reach,

and the vocational expert identified a job that, according to the SCO, requires frequent

reaching.36 In both cases, the ALJ asked the vocational expert about the consistency of

his testimony with the DOT, but it wasn’t enough for the vocational expert to confirm

his testimony was consistent with the DOT and the companion volumes.37 In both

cases, the Eighth Circuit remanded because the record did not reflect whether the

32

SCO at p. 333.

33

Id., app. C, p. C-3.

34

Id. at x-xi.

35Moore v. Colvin, 769 F.3d 987 (8th Cir. 2014); Kemp v. Colvin, 743 F.3d 630 (8th

Cir. 2014).

36Moore, 769 F.3d at 989; Kemp, 743 F.3d at 632.

37Moore, 769 F.3d at 990; Kemp, 743 F.3d at 632.

8

Case 2:14-cv-00100-BSM Document 18 Filed 06/03/15 Page 8 of 10
vocational expert or the ALJ recognized an apparent conflict.38

 In another recent case,

the Eighth Circuit stated, the ALJ has “an affirmative responsibility to ask about ‘any

possible conflict’ between [vocational expert] evidence and the DOT . . ..”39 That is, the

record must reflect an explanation about why a person with reaching limitations could

do a job that may require frequent reaching. 

The apparent conflict was not resolved in this case. At the conclusion of the

vocational expert’s testimony, the ALJ asked the vocational expert whether his

testimony was consistent with the DOT and its companion publications. The vocational

expert answered “yes.” Under the case law, that response was insufficient to resolve

the conflict, because the record doesn’t explain why a person who cannot reach

overhead and can reach occasionally can work as a cashier II. Considering the

frequency a vocational expert encounters cashier II workers, there is likely an

explanation, but the record does not reflect the explanation. The record does not even

reflect whether the vocational expert or the ALJ recognized the conflict. This case

requires additional vocational evidence to resolve the conflict. 

38Moore, 769 F.3d at 989; Kemp, 743 F.3d at 633.

39Welsh v. Colvin, 765 F.3d 926, 929 (8th Cir. 2014).

9

Case 2:14-cv-00100-BSM Document 18 Filed 06/03/15 Page 9 of 10
Conclusion and Recommendation

Inconsistency in the record supports the ALJ’s credibility assessment, but the ALJ

did not resolve an apparent conflict between the ALJ’s reaching limitations and the

reaching requirements for a cashier II. For this reason, the court should remand the

case for vocational evidence to resolve the conflict. If the court accept this

recommendation, the court’s remand order should include the following instructions:

This case is remanded for the legal error discussed in the magistrate

judge’s recommended disposition; i.e., an unresolved conflict between

claimant Mr. Knox’s reaching limitations and the reaching requirements

for cashier II. On remand, the Commissioner’s ALJ should obtain

additional vocational evidence and resolve the conflict. The ALJ may

obtain vocational evidence by questioning a vocational expert during a

hearing or by written interrogatories. After obtaining vocational evidence,

the ALJ should consider whether work exists that Mr. Knox can do.

Attaching a copy of this order will provide the ALJ with the information needed to

comply with the court’s remand order.

Dated this 3rd day of June, 2015.

____________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10

Case 2:14-cv-00100-BSM Document 18 Filed 06/03/15 Page 10 of 10