Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-1_06-cv-01018/USCOURTS-arwd-1_06-cv-01018-0/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 (DIWC)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

EL DORADO DIVISION

TRACEY E. BURDINE PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-1018

LINDA S. McMAHON, Commissioner

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Connie L. Greenwell 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 her claims for a 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 (the Act). Both parties have filed appeal briefs and

the matter is now ripe for review. The Court, being well and

sufficiently advised, finds and orders as follows with respect

thereto: 

BACKGROUND

1. Plaintiff is a 39-year old individual with a high school

education and past relevant work experience as a restaurant/office

cleaner and hotel/motel housekeeper. Plaintiff protectively filed

applications for DIB and SSI benefits on July 18, 2002, alleging

that she became disabled on June 1, 1994, due to Marfan’s

Case 1:06-cv-01018-BAB Document 11 Filed 02/28/07 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
Marfan’s syndrome is a connective tissue disorder resulting in ocular, skeletal, and

1

cardiovascular abnormalities. Patients are taller than average for their age, with arm span

exceeding height. The digits are disproportionately long and thin. Hyperextensibility of joints,

backward curvature of the legs and knees, flat feet, and kyphoscoliosis occur often. Ocular

findings include subluxation of the lens and iridodonsis. Cardiovascular changes result from

weakness of the aortic media. The Merck’s Manual, 17 ed., pg. 2406 (1999).

t h

-2-

syndrome , headache pain, and diminished visual acuity. (Tr. 75- 1

77, 93, 384 -87.)

2. An administrative hearing was conducted on May 29, 2004

(Tr. 438-67), and, on September 18, 2004, the ALJ issued a written

opinion (Tr. 398-402). The ALJ found, inter alia, that plaintiff

could stand/walk six hours in an eight-hour day. (Tr. 401.) With

regard to plaintiff’s vision problems, the ALJ noted that a

consultative opthamology evaluation revealed: 

corrected visual acuity of 20/70-2 in each eye.

Intraocular pressure was 15 bilaterally. Slit eye

examination revealed bilateral subluxated lenses. The

claimant’s diagnoses included high myopia; subluxated

lenses bilaterally; and Marfan’s syndrome.

(Tr. 286, 399.) The ALJ found that plaintiff could not read

without the use of bold print and visual aids (emphasis added).

(Tr. 401.) However, a vocational expert testified at the

administrative hearing that, even with these limitations, the

plaintiff could still perform work as a cafeteria attendant and

packer. (Tr. 402.) The ALJ, therefore, concluded that plaintiff

was not disabled. 

3. Plaintiff appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Appeals

Council, and the Appeals Council remanded the case to the ALJ for

Case 1:06-cv-01018-BAB Document 11 Filed 02/28/07 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

further consideration and development of additional evidence.

(Tr. 403-05.)

4. The ALJ conducted another administrative hearing on

February 9, 2005 (Tr. 468-500), and, on May 17, 2005, the ALJ

issued another written decision (Tr. 14-27). The ALJ found

plaintiff’s ability to sit/stand to be more limited than

previously found, concluding that she would “require work in which

she could perform most, if not all, required tasks while sitting

and/or a work environment which would require only limited

standing and/or walking.” (Tr. 26.) 

With regard to plaintiff’s visual problems, the ALJ noted

that plaintiff’s medical records revealed “diminished visual

acuity with best corrected vision of 20/100 (OD-right) and 20/60

(OS-left).” (Tr. 18, 423.) According to plaintiff’s records, her

vision “was not correctable enough to allow her to get a driver’s

license in the [S]tate of Arkansas ... and her right eye is

getting very close to being considered legally blind.” (Tr. 423.)

Despite finding that plaintiff’s vision had deteriorated, the ALJ

concluded that plaintiff would only be precluded from performing

work that required “fine or detailed visual acuity” (emphasis

added). (Tr. 26.) 

A different vocational expert testified at the second

administrative hearing. According to this vocational expert,

with the physical and visual limitations found by the ALJ,

Case 1:06-cv-01018-BAB Document 11 Filed 02/28/07 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
-4-

plaintiff could still perform the work of an office clerk or

receptionist. (Tr. 491-96.) The ALJ, therefore, concluded that

plaintiff was not disabled.

APPLICABLE LAW

5. Our review of the Commissioner's determination is

limited in scope by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court's role is to

determine whether the Commissioner's decision is supported by

substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Siemers v.

Shalala, 47 F.3d 299, 301 (8th Cir. 1995). Substantial evidence

means more than a mere scintilla of evidence, it means such

relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to

support a conclusion. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401

(1971); Oberst v. Shalala, 2 F.3d 249, 250 (8th Cir. 1993). In

deciding whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by

substantial evidence, the court must consider the evidence that

supports the Commissioner's decision, along with evidence that

detracts from it. Siemers, 47 F.3d at 301; Barrett v. Shalala, 38

F.3d 1019, 1022 (8th Cir. 1994).

6. It is well-established that a claimant for Social

Security disability benefits has the burden of proving her

disability by establishing a physical or mental disability that

has lasted at least one year and that prevents her from engaging

in any substantial gainful activity. See Pearsall v. Massanari,

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

Case 1:06-cv-01018-BAB Document 11 Filed 02/28/07 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
-5-

423(d)(1)(A), 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)(c). A

plaintiff must show that her disability, not simply her

impairment, has lasted for at least twelve consecutive months.

7. 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 her 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 her age, education, and experience.

See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. 

DISCUSSION

8. The Court is troubled by the ALJ’s inconsistent findings

in his first and second written opinions regarding plaintiff’s

Case 1:06-cv-01018-BAB Document 11 Filed 02/28/07 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
-6-

visual impairments. In the ALJ’s first decision, he found that

plaintiff’s corrected visual acuity was 20/70 in each eye and that

plaintiff could not read without the use of bold print and visual

aids. In his second decision, the ALJ found that plaintiff’s

visual acuity had diminished to 20/100 in her right eye. This

finding was supported by plaintiff’s medical records, which also

revealed that plaintiff’s poor vision prevented her from obtaining

a driver’s license and that she was considered to be “very close”

to being legally blind in her right eye. The ALJ, nevertheless,

concluded in his second decision that plaintiff would only be

precluded from performing work that required fine or detailed

visual acuity. 

In essence, the ALJ inexplicably found that while plaintiff’s

visual impairments had worsened, plaintiff’s ability to read had

somehow improved. This finding cannot be said to be supported by

substantial evidence. Further, if, as the ALJ originally found,

plaintiff can only read with the use of bold print and visual

aids, then the Court finds a lack of substantial evidence to

support the ALJ’s conclusion that plaintiff is capable of working

as an office clerk or receptionist.

9. Accordingly, the Court believes remand is necessary to

allow the ALJ to further develop the record with regard to

plaintiff’s visual impairments and to obtain further vocational 

Case 1:06-cv-01018-BAB Document 11 Filed 02/28/07 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
-7-

testimony regarding the work, if any, plaintiff is capable of

performing with these impairments.

CONCLUSION

10. Based on the foregoing, this case is hereby remanded to

the Commissioner for further consideration pursuant to sentence

four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Given that plaintiff's DIB and SSI

applications have been pending for over four years and that the

case was previously remanded by the Appeals Council, the

Commissioner is directed to expedite the proceedings on remand.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 28 day of February 2007. th

/S/JIMM LARRY HENDREN 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 1:06-cv-01018-BAB Document 11 Filed 02/28/07 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>