Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_19-cv-00625/USCOURTS-ared-4_19-cv-00625-0/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 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

TINNA GRAY PLAINTIFF 

V. NO. 4:19-CV-625-JM-BD 

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner 

Social Security Administration1

 DEFENDANT

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION 

This Recommendation has been sent to Judge James M. Moody, Jr. Either party 

may file objections if they disagree with the findings or conclusions set out in this 

Recommendation. If objections are filed, they should be specific and should include the 

factual or legal basis for the objection. 

To be considered, objections must be received in the office of the Court Clerk 

within 14 days of this Recommendation. If no objections are filed, Judge Miller can adopt 

this Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. By not objecting, 

parties may also waive the right to appeal questions of fact. 

I. Introduction:

 On April 15, 2014, Tinna Gray applied for disability benefits, alleging disability 

beginning February 10, 2004. (Tr. at 151) Her claims were denied both initially and upon 

reconsideration. Id. After conducting a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) 

denied Ms. Gray’s application. Id. She requested that the Appeals Council review the 

 

1 On June 6, 2019, Andrew Saul became Commissioner of the Social Security 

Administration. He is substituted, therefore, as the Defendant. FED. R. CIV. P. 25(d). 

Case 4:19-cv-00625-JM Document 15 Filed 05/14/20 Page 1 of 7
ALJ’s decision, and the Appeals Council remanded the case for further administrative 

review. (Tr. at 14) 

A second hearing was held on January 8, 2018, after which an ALJ again denied 

Ms. Gray’s petition for benefits. (Tr. at 33) The Appeals Council upheld the ALJ’s 

decision. (Tr. at 1) Therefore, the ALJ’s decision now stands as the final decision of the 

Commissioner. Ms. Gray filed this case seeking judicial review of the decision denying 

her benefits. 

II. The Commissioner=s Decision:

The remand order from the Appeals Council, dated January 6, 2017, ordered the 

ALJ to obtain Ms. Gray’s education records if available, to further evaluate her mental 

impairments, to obtain a consultative medical opinion if necessary, and to obtain 

evidence from a vocational expert. (Tr. at 14-15) 

In his opinion, the ALJ found that Ms. Gray had not engaged in substantial gainful 

activity since April 15, 2014, the application date. (Tr. at 17) At step two of the five-step 

analysis, the ALJ found that Ms. Gray had the following severe impairments: unspecified 

neurodevelopmental disorder and unspecified depressive disorder with some reactive 

anxiety. Id. 

After finding that Ms. Gray’s impairments did not meet or equal a listed 

impairment (Tr. at 18), the ALJ determined that Ms. Gray had the residual functional 

capacity (“RFC”) to perform work at all exertional levels, with some additional 

limitations: (1) she could communicate in a socially adequate manner with adequate 

grammar for communicating information for at least basic work-like tasks; (2) 

Case 4:19-cv-00625-JM Document 15 Filed 05/14/20 Page 2 of 7
3 

interpersonal contact with others should be only incidental to the work performed; (3) she 

could understand, remember, and carry out basic work-like tasks that are simple, routine, 

or repetitive in nature, with the ability to perform tasks learned by short demonstration 

within no more than 30 days, and requiring few variables and limited individual judgment 

(i.e. unskilled work); (4) she could respond adequately to work pressure in an appropriate 

work-like setting that utilizes visual skills without requirements for complex memory or 

requirements for fast processing speed; (5) she could maintain an appropriately steady 

pace for completing assigned job tasks within an acceptable timeframe; but (6) she could 

not perform job tasks that would require making change or counting, handling money, or 

operating a motor vehicle. (Tr. at 20) 

The ALJ found that Ms. Gray had no past relevant work. (Tr. at 32) Relying on the 

testimony of a Vocational Expert ("VE"), the ALJ found that, considering Ms. Gray’s 

age, education, work experience and RFC, jobs existed in significant numbers in the 

national economy that she could perform, including work as trash collector, icer, and 

salvage worker. (Tr. at 33) Thus, the ALJ held that Ms. Gray was not disabled. Id. 

III. Discussion: 

A. Standard of Review 

In this appeal, the Court must review the Commissioner’s decision for legal error 

and assure that the decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. 

Brown v. Colvin, 825 F.3d 936, 939 (8th Cir. 2016) (citing Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 

Case 4:19-cv-00625-JM Document 15 Filed 05/14/20 Page 3 of 7
4 

922, 929 (8th Cir. 2010)). Stated another way, the decision must rest on enough evidence 

that “a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support [the] conclusion.” Halverson, 

600 F.3d at 929. The Court will not reverse the decision, however, solely because there is 

evidence to support a conclusion different from that reached by the Commissioner. 

Pelkey v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 575, 578 (8th Cir. 2006). 

B. Ms. Gray=s Arguments on Appeal 

Ms. Gray, appearing pro se, filed a one-page, handwritten document, which did 

not identify any particular point for reversal. (Doc. No. 13) The Court will construe Ms. 

Gray’s filing as a challenge to the ALJ’s decision on grounds that the decision is not 

supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. 

The Court has carefully reviewed the record. After reviewing the record as a 

whole and, as explained below, the Court concludes that the ALJ did not err in denying 

benefits. 

The medical evidence is scant and reveals very few doctors’ visits over the 

relevant time-period. While Ms. Gray screened positive for mild-to-moderate depression 

in 2016 (Tr. at 529), she had mostly normal mental status examinations; and she was 

treated conservatively with psychiatric medication. (Tr. at 467-508) A lack of clinical 

findings may support an ALJ’s decision to deny benefits. Gowell v. Apfel, 242 F.3d 793, 

796 (8th Cir. 2001). Most of Ms. Gray’s doctor visits were related to acute problems, 

such as headaches, generalized pain, or a need for medication refills. Id. She did not seek 

Case 4:19-cv-00625-JM Document 15 Filed 05/14/20 Page 4 of 7
5 

individualized psychiatric care. (Tr. at 557-579) The failure to seek regular and 

continuing treatment contradicts allegations of disability. See Gwathney v. Chater, 104 

F.3d 1043, 1045 (8th Cir. 1997). 

Ms. Gray’s musculoskeletal examinations were normal, overall; and she did not 

have any objective testing for physical problems. She reported that she was able to cook 

(although she “didn’t like to”), perform some chores, visit with family, care for her 

teenage son, watch television, attend church, and exercise. (Tr. at 20-22, 310-312, 560-

571) These daily activities undermine her claims of disability. Shannon v. Chater, 54 

F.3d 484, 487 (8th Cir. 1995). 

Pursuant to the Appeals Council’s remand order, the ALJ ordered a consultative 

examination, which was performed on February 20, 2018 by Dr. Kenneth Hobby, Ph.D. 

Dr. Hobby found that Ms. Gray was significantly below average in intellectual 

functioning, but also, that she was attentive, cooperative, and pleasant at the interview. 

(Tr. at 557-579) He found that she could understand basic instructions but noted that she 

would have difficulty with complex tasks. Id. She interacted in a socially adequate 

manner and had no limitations in concentration. Id. Dr. Hobby noted that he had 

reviewed Ms. Gray’s school records prior to his examination and noted that the records 

did not show any significant cognitive problems. Id. He did not assign substantial 

functional limitations. 

 

Case 4:19-cv-00625-JM Document 15 Filed 05/14/20 Page 5 of 7
6 

The Court finds no error in the ALJ’s evaluation of impairments or determination 

of Ms. Gray’s RFC. A claimant’s RFC represents the most she can do despite the 

combined effects of all credible limitations. The RFC finding must be based on all 

credible evidence. McCoy v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 605, 614 (8th Cir. 2011). In determining 

the claimant’s RFC, the ALJ has a duty to establish, by competent medical evidence, the 

physical and mental activity that the claimant can perform in a work setting, after giving 

appropriate consideration to all impairments. Ostronski v. Chater, 94 F.3d 413, 418 (8th 

Cir. 1996). 

Ms. Gray had limited treatment consisting of medication management only. No 

doctor placed any restrictions on her; and Dr. Hobby’s medical opinion stated that Ms. 

Gray was not significantly limited in work tasks. The state-agency reviewing doctor 

found Ms. Gray capable of unskilled work. (Tr. at 141-144) 

As noted, Ms. Gray was able to perform daily activities. The assigned RFC for 

simple, unskilled work incorporated all of Ms. Gray’s credible limitations. The ALJ 

followed the Appeals Council’s remand instructions and properly evaluated the record as 

a whole. 

IV. Conclusion:

There is substantial evidence to support the Commissioner=s decision that Ms. 

Gray was not disabled. The RFC incorporated all of Ms. Gray’s limitations. The decision, 

therefore, should be affirmed and the case dismissed, with prejudice. 

Case 4:19-cv-00625-JM Document 15 Filed 05/14/20 Page 6 of 7
7 

DATED this 14th day of May, 2020. 

___________________________________ 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 4:19-cv-00625-JM Document 15 Filed 05/14/20 Page 7 of 7