Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_19-cv-00129/USCOURTS-ared-3_19-cv-00129-1/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 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

DAVID WILSON PLAINTIFF 

V. NO. 3:19CV00129 DPM/PSH 

ANDREW SAUL, COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION1

 DEFENDANT

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION 

The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent 

to United States District Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. You may file written objections to 

all or part of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) 

specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your objections; and (2) be 

received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of this 

Recommendation. By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of 

fact. 

I. Introduction:

 Plaintiff, David Wilson, applied for disability benefits on December 15, 2016, 

alleging a disability onset date of January 1, 2014.2

 (Tr. at 9). The application was 

 

1

 On June 6, 2019, the United States Senate confirmed Mr. Saul’s nomination to lead the 

Social Security Administration. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Mr. Saul is 

automatically substituted as the Defendant. 

2

 Mr. Wilson amended his onset date to October 31, 2016. (Tr. at 9). 

Case 3:19-cv-00129-DPM Document 13 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 7
denied initially and upon reconsideration Id. After conducting a hearing, the 

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Mr. Wilson’s claim. (Tr. at 34). The 

Appeals Council denied his request for review. (Tr. at 1). The ALJ=s decision now 

stands as the final decision of the Commissioner, and Mr. Wilson has requested 

judicial review. For the reasons stated below, the Court should affirm the decision 

of the Commissioner. 

II. The Commissioner=s Decision:

The ALJ found that Mr. Wilson had not engaged in substantial gainful activity 

since the amended alleged onset date of October 31, 2016. (Tr. at 11). At Step Two 

of the sequential five-step analysis, the ALJ found that Mr. Wilson had the following 

severe impairments: myalgia encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome, 

degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, and asthma. Id. 

The ALJ found that Mr. Wilson’s impairments did not meet or equal a listed 

impairment. (Tr. at 13). Before proceeding to Step Four, the ALJ determined that 

Mr. Wilson had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform work at the light 

level, with limitations. Id. He could occasionally climb stairs, balance, stoop, kneel, 

crouch, and crawl, but could not climb ladders. Id. He could frequently reach, handle, 

finger, and feel, bilaterally. Id. He must avoid hazards such as unprotected heights 

and moving mechanical parts. Id. He must avoid extreme heat. Id. He would have to 

avoid pulmonary irritants such as concentrated exposure to dust, odors, and toxic 

Case 3:19-cv-00129-DPM Document 13 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 7
3 

fumes. Id. 

The ALJ next found that Mr. Wilson was unable to perform any of his past 

relevant work. (Tr. at 32). The ALJ relied on the testimony of a Vocational Expert 

("VE") to find that, considering Mr. Wilson's age, education, work experience and 

RFC, jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy that he could 

perform. (Tr. at 34). Therefore, the ALJ found that Mr. Wilson was not disabled. Id. 

III. Discussion: 

A. Standard of Review 

The Court’s function on review is to determine whether the Commissioner’s 

decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and whether 

it is based on legal error. Miller v. Colvin, 784 F.3d 472, 477 (8th Cir. 2015); see 

also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). While “substantial evidence” is that which a reasonable 

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, “substantial evidence on the 

record as a whole” requires a court to engage in a more scrutinizing analysis: 

“[O]ur review is more than an examination of the record for the 

existence of substantial evidence in support of the Commissioner’s 

decision; we also take into account whatever in the record fairly 

detracts from that decision.” Reversal is not warranted, however, 

“merely because substantial evidence would have supported an 

opposite decision.” 

Reed v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 917, 920 (8th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). 

Case 3:19-cv-00129-DPM Document 13 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 7
4 

It is not the task of this Court to review the evidence and make an independent 

decision. Neither is it to reverse the decision of the ALJ because there is evidence in 

the record which contradicts his findings. The test is whether there is substantial 

evidence in the record as a whole which supports the decision of the ALJ. Miller, 

784 F.3d at 477. The Court has reviewed the entire record, including the briefs, the 

ALJ’s decision, and the transcript of the hearing. 

B. Mr. Wilson=s Arguments on Appeal 

Mr. Wilson contends that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ=s 

decision to deny benefits. He argues that the ALJ did not give proper weight to the 

opinion of Mr. Wilson’s treating doctor, the ALJ did not properly consider Chronic 

Fatigue Syndrome (“CFS”), and the ALJ did not adequately analyze Mr. Wilson’s 

subjective complaints. After reviewing the record as a whole, the Court concludes 

that the ALJ did not err in denying benefits. 

Mr. Wilson suffered from a variety of symptoms such as fatigue, dizziness, 

stomach pain, and back pain. (Tr. at 19-26). Doctors from a variety of specialized 

clinics found it hard to tie all of these complaints together. This was because, in 

general, objective test results were normal (brain EEG, lumbar spine x-ray, 

pulmonary function testing, colonoscopy, EKG, lab work). (Tr. at 14-17). And 

musculoskeletal examinations showed negative straight-leg raise, no motor 

Case 3:19-cv-00129-DPM Document 13 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 7
5 

abnormalities, normal strength and tone, no muscle spasms, and normal gait and 

reflexes. (Tr. at 1191-1192, 1211, 1428, 1430, 1437). On top of that, Mr. Wilson 

repeatedly said that medication like Gabapentin and Percocet helped his pain and 

improved his quality of life. (Tr. at 1189, 1391, 1393, 1395, 1401, 1492). He was 

able to do daily activities such as helping his daughter get dressed for school, doing 

light chores, fixing dinner, caring for a pet, and shopping in stores. (Tr. at 60-61, 

265-268). 

Mr. Wilson first argues that the ALJ did not properly consider CFS. The Court 

disagrees. In fact, the ALJ ruled CFS to be a severe impairment, and then discussed 

in detail the symptoms and diagnoses related to it. (Tr. at 12-28). She analyzed the 

medical opinions and Mr. Wilson’s testimony and limited him to light work as a 

result of CFS. Id. Once the ALJ proceeds past Step Two, the labeling of an 

impairment as severe or non-severe has no legal significance; the medical record as 

whole is the basis for the determinations at Steps Three and Four. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 

404.1545(e), 416.945(e); Social Security Ruling 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184 (the ALJ 

will consider all medically determinable impairments, even those that are nonsevere, when assessing residual functional capacity). The relatively benign 

medical record shows that CFS did not render Mr. Wilson disabled. The ALJ 

considered the record as a whole, including Mr. Wilson’s CFS. 

Case 3:19-cv-00129-DPM Document 13 Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 7
6 

Mr. Wilson next claims that the ALJ did not give proper weight to the opinions 

of Dr. Jerrydon Coon, D.O., who treated Mr. Wilson a few times during the relevant 

time period. Dr. Coon’s records document that Mr. Wilson’s physical examinations 

showed normal tone, no malalignment, normal strength, and normal gait and station. 

(Tr. at 1418, 1424-1430, 1501-1508). Mr. Wilson was healthy appearing and wellnourished at his visits. Id. Dr. Coon did not recommend aggressive treatment. Id. 

However, Dr. Coon submitted a medical source statement that limited Mr. Wilson 

to less than sedentary work. (Tr. at 1509-1510). Physician opinions that are 

internally inconsistent are entitled to less deference than they would receive in the 

absence of inconsistencies. Guilliams v. Barnhart, 393 F.3d 798, 803 (8th Cir. 2005). 

Moreover, Dr. Coon’s statement was on a short check box form with no citation to 

medical evidence, which renders it less than persuasive. 

The ALJ weighed Dr. Coon’s opinion in conjunction with that of the nonexamining expert who found Mr. Wilson capable of light work. (Tr. at 91). This 

opinion was more in keeping with the medical evidence of mild conditions that were 

controlled by treatment. The ALJ did not err by discounting Dr. Coon’s statement. 

Finally, the ALJ properly evaluated Mr. Wilson’s subjective complaints. 

When evaluating a claimant's subjective complaints of pain, the ALJ must consider 

objective medical evidence, the claimant's work history, and other evidence relating 

Case 3:19-cv-00129-DPM Document 13 Filed 02/20/20 Page 6 of 7
7 

to (1) the claimant's daily activities; (2) the duration, frequency, and intensity of the 

pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the dosage, effectiveness, and side 

effects of medication; and (5) the claimant's functional restrictions. See Schwandt v. 

Berryhill, 926 F.3d 1004, 1012 (8th Cir. 2019). An ALJ need not explicitly discuss 

each factor, and she may decline to credit a claimant's subjective complaints if the 

evidence as a whole is inconsistent with the claimant's testimony. Id. Here, the ALJ 

discussed mild testing results, Mr. Wilson’s positive response to conservative 

treatment, improvement in condition, ability to perform activities of daily living, and 

the medical opinions of record. She fully considered Mr. Wilson’s subjective 

complaints. 

VI. Conclusion:

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

Wilson was not disabled. The ALJ properly considered all impairments, gave 

appropriate weight to the medical opinions, and properly analyzed Mr. Wilson’s 

subjective complaints. The decision, therefore, should be affirmed. The case should 

be dismissed, with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of February, 2020. 

___________________________________ 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:19-cv-00129-DPM Document 13 Filed 02/20/20 Page 7 of 7