Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_04-cv-02226/USCOURTS-arwd-2_04-cv-02226-0/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)

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

DAVID W. PULLAN PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL NO. 04-2226

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff David W. Pullan brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking

judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

(Commissioner) denying his claims for period of disability and disability insurance benefits

(DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI) benefits under the provisions of Titles II and XVI

of the Social Security Act (Act). 

Procedural Background:

The applications for DIB and SSI presently before this court were filed on August 22,

2001, alleging an inability to work since December 28, 1997, due to a mental impairment and

residuals from two brain surgeries. (Tr. 55-58, 144-146). An administrative hearing was held

on September 4, 2002. (Tr. 158-187). Plaintiff was present and represented by counsel. 

By written decision dated March 18, 2003, the ALJ found that plaintiff has an impairment

or combination of impairments that are severe. (Tr. 21). However, after reviewing all of the

evidence presented, he determined that plaintiff’s impairments do not meet or equal the level of

Case 2:04-cv-02226-BSJ Document 11 Filed 10/07/05 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

severity of any impairment listed in the Listing of Impairments found in Appendix I, Subpart P,

Regulation No. 4. (Tr. 21). The ALJ found plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity

(RFC) to perform the exertional activities of less than the full range of light work. More

specifically, plaintiff could continuously lift and carry up to twenty pounds, frequently lift and

carry up to fifty pounds, and occasionally lift and carry up to one hundred pounds; could sit,

stand and walk up to six hours total in an eight-hour workday; could frequently perform fine

grasping and frequently use both of hisfeet in work-related functions; could occasionally climb

and balance and continuously stoop, crouch, kneel or crawl; could continuously reach and

frequently handle, feel, push/pull, hear or speak; and could work around chemical, noise,

humidity, dust, temperature extremes, fumes or vibrations but should not work around heights

or moving machinery. Due to borderline intellectual functioning, the ALJ found that in the area

of making occupational adjustments plaintiff has a good ability to follow work rules, relate to

co-workers, deal with the public, use judgment with the public, interact with supervisors, deal

with work stresses and function independently; and a fair ability to maintain attention and

concentration. In the area of performance adjustments, plaintiff has a good ability to understand,

remember, and carry out complex and detailed job instructions; and poor to no ability to

understand, remember, carry out complex and detailed job instructions. In the area of making

personal-social adjustments, plaintiff has a good ability to maintain personal appearance, behave

in an emotionally stable manner and relate predictability in social situations; and a fair ability

to demonstrate reliability. (Tr. 21). With the help of vocational expert testimony, the ALJ found

plaintiff could perform his past relevant work as a truck stop attendant and a stocker/stacker in

a grocery store. (Tr. 21). 

Case 2:04-cv-02226-BSJ Document 11 Filed 10/07/05 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Plaintiff appealed the decision of the ALJ to the Appeals Council. Plaintiff's request for

review of the hearing decision was denied on September 18, 2004. (Tr. 2-4). When the Appeals

Council declined review, the ALJ’s decision became the final action of the Commissioner.

Plaintiff now seeks judicial review of that decision. (Doc. #1). Both parties have submitted

appeal briefs and this case is before the undersigned pursuant to the consent of the parties. (Doc.

# 9, 10).

Applicable Law:

This court's role is to determine whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by

substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Ramirez v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 576, 583 (8th Cir.

2002). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance but it is enough that a reasonable mind

would find it adequate to support the Commissioner's decision. The ALJ's decision must be

affirmed if the record contains substantial evidence to support it. Edwards v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d

964, 966 (8th Cir. 2003). As long as there is substantial evidence in the record that supports the

Commissioner's decision, the court may not reverse it simply because substantial evidence exists

in the record that would have supported a contrary outcome, or because the court would have

decided the case differently. Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2001). In other

words, if after reviewing the record it is possible to draw two inconsistent positions from the

evidence and one of those positions represents the findings of the ALJ, the decision of the ALJ

must be affirmed. Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065, 1068 (8th Cir. 2000).

It is well-established that a claimant for Social Security disability benefits has the burden

of proving his disability by establishing a physical or mental disability that has lasted at least one

year and that prevents him from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. Pearsall v.

Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1217 (8th Cir.2001); see also 42 U.S.C. § § 423(d)(1)(A),

Case 2:04-cv-02226-BSJ Document 11 Filed 10/07/05 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act defines “physical or mental impairment” as “an impairment that results

from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by

medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 42 U.S.C. § § 423(d)(3),

1382(3)©). A plaintiff must show that his disability, not simply his impairment, has lasted for

at least twelve consecutive months.

The Commissioner's regulations require her to apply a five-step sequential evaluation

process to each claim for disability benefits: (1) whether the claimant has engaged in substantial

gainful activity since filing his claim; (2) whether the claimant has a severe physical and/or

mental impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment(s) meet or equal

an impairment in the listings; (4) whether the impairment(s) prevent the claimant from doing past

relevant work; and, (5) whether the claimant is able to perform other work in the national

economy given his age, education, and experience. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. Only

if the final stage is reached does the fact finder consider the plaintiff's age, education, and work

experience in light of his residual functional capacity. See McCoy v. Schwieker, 683 F.2d 1138,

1141-42 (8th Cir. 1982); 20 C .F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920.

Discussion:

Of particular concern to the undersigned is the ALJ’s RFC determination. RFC is the

most a person can do despite that person’s limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). A disability

claimant has the burden of establishing his or her RFC. See Masterson v. Barnhart, 363 F.3d

731, 737 (8th Cir.2004). “The ALJ determines a claimant’s RFC based on all relevant evidence

in the record, including medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and the

claimant’s own descriptions of his or her limitations.” Eichelberger v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 584,

591 (8th Cir. 2004). This includes medical records, observations of treating physicians and

Case 2:04-cv-02226-BSJ Document 11 Filed 10/07/05 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

others, and the claimant’s own descriptions of his or her limitations. Guilliams v. Barnhart, 393

F.3d 798, 801 (8th Cir. 2005). Limitations resulting from symptoms such as pain are also

factored into the assessment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). The United States Court of Appeals

for the Eighth Circuit has held that a “claimant’s residual functional capacity is a medical

question.” Lauer v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 700, 704 (8th Cir. 2001). Therefore, an ALJ’s

determination concerning a claimant’s RFC must be supported by medical evidence that

addresses the claimant’s ability to function in the workplace.” Lewis v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 642,

646 (8th Cir. 2003). “Under this step, the ALJ is required to set forth specifically a claimant’s

limitations and to determine how those limitations affect her RFC.” Id.

In the present case, the ALJ found plaintiff could perform a limited range of light work.

Specifically, he found plaintiff was able to stand and walk six hours out of an eight-hour

workday. In making this determination, the ALJ discounted Dr. Bradley Short’s, a consultative

examiner’s, opinion that due to plaintiff’s abnormal gait and problems with coordination and

balance, he could stand for two hours out of an eight-hour workday, one hour without

interruption and could walk for two hours out of an eight-hour, one hour without interruption.

Dr. Short’s assessment is the only physical RFC assessment of record. Furthermore, it appears

his opinion is based on his physical examination of plaintiff on October 15, 2002. (Tr. 137-138).

Upon examining plaintiff, Dr. Short noted plaintiff exhibited some dysmetria with finger-nosefinger; that he was slow to perform rapid alternating movements, bilaterally; that he was able to

perform heel shin with some concentration and increased time; that his gait was mildly broad

based but there was no evidence of foot drop; that he was unable to perform tandem gait, as he

fell to the right; and that he was unable to perform Romberg as he tended to fall to the right and

Case 2:04-cv-02226-BSJ Document 11 Filed 10/07/05 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Dysmetria is defined as a condition in which there is improper estimation of distance in muscular acts, with 1

 disturbance of the power to control the range of muscular movement, often resulting in overreaching. See Dorland's

 Illustrated Medication, Dictionary at 555, 29th Edition (2000).

backward. (Tr. 138). The ALJ is free to disregard a treating/examining physician; however, he 1

must have some professional medical evidence to support the RFC determination. Based on the

all the medical evidence of record, we do not find substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s RFC

determination. 

We believe remand is warranted so that the ALJ can more fully and fairly develop the

record. Due to the nature of plaintiff’s neurological impairments and the lack of medical

evidence of record, the ALJ is directed to order a consultative neurological exam, in which, the

consultative neuropsychiatrist, should be asked to review the medical evidence of record,

perform mental and physical examinations and appropriate testing needed to properly diagnosis

plaintiff's condition, and complete a medical assessment of plaintiff's ability to perform work

related activities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1517, 416.917. With this evidence, the ALJ should then

re-evaluate plaintiff's RFC and specifically list in a hypothetical to a vocational expert any

limitations that are indicated in the RFC assessments and supported by the evidence. 

If after proper review of an adequately developed record, the ALJ finds that plaintiff

cannot return to his past relevant work, the burden will shift to the Commissioner to prove the

existence of other jobs in the national economy that plaintiff can perform. Sells v. Shalala, 48

F.3d 1044 (8th Cir. 1995). We note, there is evidence of record that plaintiff’s employers made

accommodations for him. On remand, the ALJ should make inquiries as to the exact nature of

these accommodations.

Case 2:04-cv-02226-BSJ Document 11 Filed 10/07/05 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Conclusion:

Based on the foregoing, we hereby reverse the decision of the ALJ and remand this case

for further consideration pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

DATED this 7 day of October 2005. th

/s/ Beverly Stites Jones 

HON. BEVERLY STITES JONES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02226-BSJ Document 11 Filed 10/07/05 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>