Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_14-cv-00476/USCOURTS-ared-4_14-cv-00476-0/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

WESTERN DIVISION

Cindy Lee Miller Plaintiff

v. No. 4:14CV00476 JLH-JTR

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner,

Social Security Administration Defendant

Recommended Disposition

Instructions

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

J. Leon Holmes. 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 Holmes may adopt the recommended disposition without independently

1

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

2

Griffini 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).

Case 4:14-cv-00476-JLH Document 15 Filed 12/14/15 Page 1 of 10
reviewing all of the record evidence.

Reasoning for Recommended Disposition

Cindy Lee Miller seeks judicial review of the denial of her application for social

security disability benefits.3

 Miller last worked in December 2011, as a certified

nursing assistant (CNA). She alleges disability since that time and bases her claim on

seizures and back problems.

The Commissioner’s decision. After considering the application, the ALJ

identified severe impairments — T12 burst fracture status post open reduction internal

fixation at T11-L1 and epilepsy4

 — and determined Miller can do some light work,

to include her past work as production/assembly worker.5

 The ALJ made an

alternative finding that Miller can do other available work. The ALJ concluded that

Miller is not disabled and denied the application.6

After the Appeals Council denied review,7 the ALJ’s decision became the

3

SSA record at pp. 134 & 141 (applying on April 3, 2012 and alleging disability

beginning Dec. 26, 2011).

4

Id. at p. 21.

5

Id. at pp. 22 & 27.

6

Id. at p. 29.

7

Id. at p. 1.

2

Case 4:14-cv-00476-JLH Document 15 Filed 12/14/15 Page 2 of 10
Commissioner’s final decision for the purpose of judicial review.8

 Miller filed this

case to challenge the decision.9

 This recommendation explains why the court should

affirm the decision.

Miller’s allegations. Miller challenges most aspects of the decision: (1) record

development, (2) consideration of the medical listings, (3) evaluation of her

credibility, (4) the determination about her ability to work, (5) the finding about the

ability to do past work, and (6) the alternative finding about other available.10

Applicable legal principles. When reviewing a decision denying an

application for disability benefits, the court must determine whether substantial

evidence supports the decision and whether the ALJ made a legal error.11 For

substantial evidence to exist, a reasonable mind must accept the evidence as adequate

8

See Anderson v. Sullivan, 959 F.2d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1992) (stating that “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).

9

Docket entry # 1.

10Docket entry # 12.

11See 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 an

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.”).

3

Case 4:14-cv-00476-JLH Document 15 Filed 12/14/15 Page 3 of 10
to support the determination that Miller can do some light work and that work exists

that Miller can do.12

“Light work involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent

lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds.”13 The ALJ determined

Miller’s impairments posed some non-exertional limitations and placed the following

limitations on light work: (1) occasional stooping and crouching; (2) no climbing

ladders/ropes/scaffolds; and (3) avoid moderate exposure to hazards like unprotected

heights and moving machinery.14 The question for the court is whether a reasonable

mind will accept the evidence as adequate to show Miller can work within these

parameters.

A reasonable mind will accept the evidence as adequate for the following

reasons: 

1. Miller’s impairments are controlled by treatment. “An impairment

which can be controlled by treatment or medication is not considered

disabling.”15 Miller claims she has been disabled since December 2011

when she stopped working, but the impairments underlying her claim

manifested on January 20, 2012. On that day, Miller presented to a

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

exists if a reasonable mind will accept evidence as adequate to support conclusion).

1320 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(b) & 416.967(b).

14SSA record at p. 22.

15Estes v. Barnhart, 275 F.3d 722, 725 (8th Cir. 2002).

4

Case 4:14-cv-00476-JLH Document 15 Filed 12/14/15 Page 4 of 10
hospital emergency room and complained about a seizure-like episode

and severe back pain.16

Miller tested positive for amphetamine, benzodiazepine, and marijuana.17

Diagnostic imaging showed a burst fracture in the mid-spine at level

T12.18 The fracture was surgically repaired with bone fusion and

fixation hardware at levels T11 to L1.19 Nineteen weeks later, Miller was

better; the hardware was stable.20 Her neurosurgeon asked her to return

in four months, but the record reflects no return visit.

After back surgery, a neurologist treated Miller for seizures and

headaches.21 With medication adjustments, convulsive seizures

resolved,22 but Miller then complained about spells. The neurologist

suspected the spells were complex partial seizures.23 The neurologist

made another medication adjustment and instructed Miller to let him

know if the adjustment failed to resolve the issue within two weeks. The

record reflects no followup. The absence of followup suggests the

medication adjustment resolved the spells.

The foregoing sequence of events shows treatment controls Miller’s

symptoms. Her doctors asked her to return if she continued to have

problems. Miller has medical insurance so she could have returned if

symptoms were severe. The failure to return indicates symptoms were

16SSA record at p. 258.

17Id. at p. 262.

18Id. at pp. 299 & 302. 

19Id. at pp. 307-09.

20Id. at p. 397.

21Id. at p. 370.

22Id. at p. 425.

23Id. at p. 478.

5

Case 4:14-cv-00476-JLH Document 15 Filed 12/14/15 Page 5 of 10
controlled.

A reasonable mind will accept the evidence as adequate to support the

decision because the ALJ accounted for residual back pain and fixation

hardware by limiting stooping and crouching, and accounted for a

possible seizure by eliminating climbing ladders/ropes/scaffolds and

moderate exposure to hazards. 

2. The record was fully and fairly developed. Miller challenges the

development of the record; she says the ALJ should have ordered a

consultative mental exam and neurological exam. The ALJ must 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.”24

No need existed for a neurological exam because Miller was under the

care of a neurologist. Treatment notes are detailed. Neurological exams

were negative.25 Treatment notes reflect reports of mood changes with

certain medications.26 The neurologist adjusted medication to improve

Miller’s symptoms. No need exited for a mental exam because this

evidence suggests no severe mental impairment.27

24Barrett v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 1019, 1023 (8th Cir. 1994).

25SSA record at pp. 371-72 & 425.

26Id. at p. 369 (anti-seizure medication helped seizures and headaches, but

makes her moody and irritable, medication changed), p. 426 (no complaints about

depression, but new medicine isn’t working as well, dose increased), p. 425

(medication for depression doesn’t seem to be helping, has a flat affect, dose

increased) & p. 478 (no more convulsions, but still having problems with increased

anxiety, medication adjusted).

27Byes v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 913, 916 (8th Cir. 2012) (“If sufficient evidence

alerts the ALJ to the possibility of a severe mental impairment, the ALJ must further

develop the record about mental impairments before ruling on the severity of the

claimant’s impairment(s).”).

6

Case 4:14-cv-00476-JLH Document 15 Filed 12/14/15 Page 6 of 10
3. No basis exists for disability under a listing. If an impairment

meets or medically equals one of the impairments listed in Appendix 1

of the Commissioner’s regulations, the claimant is entitled to benefits.28

Miller insists her seizures meet a neurological listing, but she doesn’t

identify a particular listing or explain why she satisfies the listing.

The relevant listings are the ones for epilepsy: listing 11.02 convulsive

epilepsy and 11.03 nonconvulsive epilepsy. The neurologist’s treatment

notes don’t mention epilepsy, but even if the notes included a diagnosis

of epilepsy, symptoms satisfy a listing only if they persist “in spite of at

least 3 months of prescribed treatment.”29 Treatment notes shows

Miller’s symptoms improved with treatment. The ALJ did not err by

finding Miller does not meet a listing.

4. The ALJ sufficiently addressed credibility. An ALJ must evaluate

the claimant’s credibility because subjective complaints play a role in

determining the claimant’s ability to work.30 Miller contends the ALJ’s

credibility evaluation is insufficient, but the ALJ followed the required

two-step process and considered the required factors,31 so the dispositive

question is whether substantial evidence supports the credibility

evaluation.

The ALJ properly relied on decreased back pain and seizures with

treatment, independence with personal needs, caring for two children,

and exams showing Miller walks normally and rises easily from sitting. 

2820 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii) (“At the third step, we also

consider the medical severity of your impairment(s). If you have an impairment(s) that

meets or equals one of our listings in appendix 1 of this subpart and meets the duration

requirement, we will find that you are disabled.”).

2920 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, §§ 11.02 & 11.03.

30Ellis v. Barnhart, 392 F.3d 988, 995-96 (8th Cir. 2005).

31SSR 96-7p, Pol’y Interpretation Ruling Titles II & XVI: Evaluation of

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

Statements.

7

Case 4:14-cv-00476-JLH Document 15 Filed 12/14/15 Page 7 of 10
The record supports these reasons. The ALJ recognized that Miller “has

some difficulties related to her impairments,” but was “not persuaded

that is she is totally disabled and unable to pursue”32 some light work. 

A reasonable mind will accept the evidence as adequate to show Miller

over-stated her limitations.

5. Vocational evidence supports the decision. After determining

Miller’s ability to work, the ALJ asked a vocational expert about Miller’s

past work. The vocational expert classified Miller’s past work as a CNA

as medium work done as heavy work and her work as a

production/assembly line worker as light work done as heavy work. 33

According to the vocational expert, a person who can do light work with

the ALJ’s limitations can work as a production/assembly line worker. 

That opinion supports the determination that Miller can do her past work.

The ALJ asked about other available work. The vocational expert

identified storage rental clerk, furniture rental consultant, and fast food

worker as available jobs.34 These jobs show work exists that Miller can

do, regardless of whether such work exists where she lives, whether a job

vacancy exists, or whether she would be hired if she applied for work.35

Miller suggests the vocational expert’s testimony is ambiguous about

whether a machine operator or a fast food worker are exposed to

moderate hazards, but read in context, the testimony indicates machine

operator and a fast food worker are not exposed to moderate hazards.36

32SSA record at p. 27.

33Id. at p. 56.

34Id. at pp. 57-58.

3542 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(B).

36The relevant testimony follows:

Miller’s representative: ... The hypothetical from judge stipulated not

even moderate hazards, would either of the machine operator job of the

8

Case 4:14-cv-00476-JLH Document 15 Filed 12/14/15 Page 8 of 10
Miller says her impairments prevent the identified jobs, but her argument

depends on her allegation of symptoms of disabling seizures. The ALJ

properly determined that Miller over-stated her symptoms. To the extent

she relies on primary care provider medical statements,37 treatment notes

do not support the reported limitations.38

Conclusion and Recommended Disposition

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision because a reasonable mind

will accept the evidence as adequate to support the decision. Miller’s impairments do

not prevent light work. The ALJ made no reversible legal error. For these reasons,

the undersigned magistrate judge recommends DENYING Miller’s request for relief 

fast food worker job be exposed to moderate hazards?

Vocational expert: Yes, they could.

Miller’s representative: so they wouldn’t have moderate hazards in

those jobs?

Vocational expert: That’s right.

SSA record at p. 59-60.

37Id. at pp. 455 & 484.

38Id. at pp. 385-86, 433 & 466.

9

Case 4:14-cv-00476-JLH Document 15 Filed 12/14/15 Page 9 of 10
(docket entry # 2) and AFFIRMING the Commissioner’s decision.

Dated this 14th day of December, 2015.

____________________________________

United States Magistrate Judge

10

Case 4:14-cv-00476-JLH Document 15 Filed 12/14/15 Page 10 of 10