Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_23-cv-06039/USCOURTS-arwd-6_23-cv-06039-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405g Review of HHS Decision (RSI)

---

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

MELISSA HALL PLAINTIFF

vs. Civil No. 6:23-cv-06039 

 

MARTIN J. O’MALLEY DEFENDANT 

Commissioner, Social Security Administration 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Melissa Hall (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant to § 205(g) of Title II of the Social 

Security Act (“The Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2010), seeking judicial review of a final decision 

of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denying her application for 

Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Title II of the Act. 

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) (2009), the Honorable Susan 

O. Hickey referred this case to this Court for the purpose of making a report and recommendation. 

In accordance with that referral, and after reviewing the arguments in this case, this Court 

recommends Plaintiff’s case be REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

1. Background: 

Plaintiff filed her disability application on February 10, 2020. (Tr. 13). Plaintiff alleged 

disability due to cervical cancer, right and left shoulder problems, P.T.S.D., Hepatitis C, 

fibromyalgia, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and obesity. (Tr. 45-46, 350, 361).0F

1

 

Her application was denied initially and again upon reconsideration. (Tr. 13). 

1 The docket numbers for this case are referenced by the designation “ECF No. __.” The transcript pages 

for this case are referenced by the designation “Tr.” and refer to the document filed at ECF No. 6. These 

references are to the page number of the transcript itself and not the ECF page number.

Case 6:23-cv-06039-SOH Document 13 Filed 01/18/24 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>
2

Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on her denied application, and this hearing 

request was granted. (Tr. 126-177). A hearing was held on February 18, 2022. (Tr. 69-86). At 

this hearing, Plaintiff was present and represented by counsel, Sheri Arman. Id. Plaintiff and 

Vocational Expert, (“VE”) Anthony Melanson testified at this hearing. Id.

On May 3, 2022, after the administrative hearing, the ALJ entered a fully unfavorable

decision denying Plaintiff’s disability application. (Tr. 13-31). In this decision, the ALJ

determined Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity (“SGA”) since February 10, 

2020. (Tr. 16, Finding 1). The ALJ also determined Plaintiff had the following severe 

impairments: disorders of the cervical spine and right upper extremity disorders. (Tr. 16, Finding 2). 

The ALJ then determined Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that 

met or medically equaled the requirements of any of the Listings of Impairments in Appendix 1 to 

Subpart P of Regulations No. 4 (“Listings”). (Tr. 21, Finding 3). 

In this decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and determined her

Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”). (Tr. 22-29, Finding 4). First, the ALJ indicated she 

evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and found they were not entirely credible. Id. Second, 

the ALJ determined Plaintiff had the RFC to perform light work with the following limitations: 

can occasionally reach in all directions, including overhead, with the right upper extremity; can 

occasionally handle with the right upper extremity; and must avoid more than occasional exposure 

to hazards including moving machinery and unprotected heights. Id.

The ALJ then evaluated Plaintiff’s Past Relevant Work (“PRW”). (Tr. 29, Finding 5). The 

ALJ determined Plaintiff had no PRW. Id. However, the ALJ found there were jobs in significant 

numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform. (Tr. 29, Finding 9). With the help 

of the VE, the ALJ found Plaintiff could perform the representative occupations of (1) usher with 

Case 6:23-cv-06039-SOH Document 13 Filed 01/18/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>
3 

approximately 50,000 jobs in the nation, (2) counter clerk clerk with approximately 70,000 jobs in 

the nation, and (3) children’s attendant with approximately 40,000 jobs in the nation. Id. Based 

upon this finding, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not been disabled since February 10, 2020. 

(Tr. 30, Finding 10). 

 Plaintiff sought review with the Appeals Council. (Tr. 1-9). The Appeals Council denied 

this request. Id. On March 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this case. ECF No. 1. Both 

Parties have filed appeal briefs. ECF Nos. 10, 12. This matter is now ripe for consideration. 

2. Applicable Law:

In reviewing this case, this Court is required to determine whether the Commissioner’s 

findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) 

(2010); Ramirez v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 576, 583 (8th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence is less than 

a preponderance of the evidence, but it is enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to 

support the Commissioner’s decision. See Johnson v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1145, 1147 (8th Cir. 2001). 

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. 

See Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2001). 

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. See 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 or her disability 

by establishing a physical or mental disability that lasted at least one year and that prevents him or 

her from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. See Cox v. Apfel, 160 F.3d 1203, 1206 (8th 

Case 6:23-cv-06039-SOH Document 13 Filed 01/18/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>
4 

Cir. 1998); 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act defines a “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 his or her disability, 

not simply his or her impairment, has lasted for at least twelve consecutive months. See 42 U.S.C. 

§ 423(d)(1)(A). 

 To determine whether the adult claimant suffers from a disability, the Commissioner uses

the familiar five-step sequential evaluation. He determines: (1) whether the claimant is presently 

engaged in a “substantial gainful activity”; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment that 

significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities; (3) 

whether the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals a presumptively disabling impairment 

listed in the regulations (if so, the claimant is disabled without regard to age, education, and work 

experience); (4) whether the claimant has the Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) to perform his 

or her past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant cannot perform the past work, the burden shifts 

to the Commissioner to prove that there are other jobs in the national economy that the claimant 

can perform. See Cox, 160 F.3d at 1206; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)-(f). The fact finder only 

considers the plaintiff’s age, education, and work experience in light of his or her RFC if the final 

stage of this analysis is reached. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (2003). 

3. Discussion: 

In her appeal brief, Plaintiff claims the ALJ’s disability determination is not supported by 

substantial evidence in the record. ECF No. 10 at 2-16. Specifically, Plaintiff raises the following 

arguments for reversal: (1) the ALJ’s assessment of her mental impairments at Step Two was 

reversible error and (2) the ALJ’s RFC assessment is not supported by substantial evidence in the 

Case 6:23-cv-06039-SOH Document 13 Filed 01/18/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>
5

record. Because the Court finds the ALJ erred in finding her mental impairments were non-severe, 

the Court finds this case must be reversed and remanded. 

A claimant suffers from a severe impairment if that impairment is more than slight and if 

that impairment affects the claimant’s ability to do his or her basic work activities. See 

Householder v. Bowen, 861 F.2d 191, 192 n.1 (8th Cir. 1988). The Supreme Court has also held 

that a claimant does not suffer from a severe impairment where the claimant only suffers from 

“slight abnormalities that do not significantly limit any ‘basic work activity.’” See Bowen v. 

Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 155 (1987) (O’Connor, S., concurring) (emphasis added); see also Brown 

v. Bowen, 827 F.2d 311, 311-12 (8th Cir. 1987) (adopting Justice O’Connor’s language from 

Bowen v. Yuckert). See also Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 707-09 (8th Cir. 2007). 

Furthermore, the standard for determining whether a claimant suffers from a severe 

impairment is a low standard. See Nicola v. Astrue, 480 F.3d 885, 887 (8th Cir. 2007) (reversing 

the decision of the ALJ and holding that a diagnosis of borderline intellectual functioning should 

have been considered severe because that diagnosis was supported by sufficient medical evidence). 

If the ALJ errs by finding a severe impairment is not severe, the ALJ’s disability determination 

must be reversed and remanded. See Nicola, 480 F.3d at 887. 

In this case, Plaintiff alleged being disabled due to, among other things, mental 

impairments, depressive disorder, and anxiety disorder. The medical record shows Plaintiff was 

treated, hospitalized, and received medication for various mental impairments. (Tr. 687-707, 711-

769, 1060-1066, 1069-1078). Plaintiff also testified about the effects this condition and 

medications had on her and her ability to work. (Tr. 59-61, 64-66). 

As recognized above, the standard for determining whether an impairment is severe is a 

low standard. Based upon the record, Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence demonstrating 

Case 6:23-cv-06039-SOH Document 13 Filed 01/18/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>
6 

her mental impairments meet that standard. Thus, this case must be reversed and remanded for 

further consideration of this issue and a determination as to whether any of Plaintiff’s other 

impairments meet this low standard. 

4. Conclusion:

 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that the decision of the ALJ, denying 

benefits to Plaintiff, is not supported by substantial evidence and recommends it be REVERSED 

AND REMANDED. 

The Parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation 

in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely 

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The Parties are 

reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the 

district court. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990). 

ENTERED this 18th day of January 2024.

 

 /s/ Barry A. Bryant HON. BARRY A. BRYANT

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:23-cv-06039-SOH Document 13 Filed 01/18/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>