Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_14-cv-00156/USCOURTS-ared-3_14-cv-00156-0/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

JONESBORO DIVISION

TRACY HOGAN PLAINTIFF

V. NO. 3:14CV156-BD

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner, 

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

ORDER

Oral argument hearing was held on June 11, 2015. Following a review of the

record and arguments presented by counsel, the Court announced its findings of fact and

conclusions of law, affirming the Commissioner’s decision. Based on the record as a

whole, there was sufficient evidence to support the decision that Ms. Hogan was not

disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act as of the time of the hearing

before the Administrative Law Judge. An excerpted transcript with detailed findings and

conclusions is attached. 

Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed, and the case is hereby

dismissed, with prejudice. 

 So ordered, this 1st day of July, 2015. 

___________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:14-cv-00156-BD Document 19 Filed 07/01/15 Page 1 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

 JONESBORO DIVISION 

TRACY HOGAN, .

 . Docket No. 3:14-CV-00156-BD

PLAINTIFF, . 

 . Little Rock, Arkansas

VS. . June 11, 2015

 . 9:59 A.M.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION .

 .

COMMISSIONER, .

 .

DEFENDANT. .

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TRANSCRIPT OF

EXCERPTED ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

IN ORAL ARGUMENT HEARING

BEFORE THE HONORABLE BETH DEERE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ELECTRONIC COURT RECORDER-OPERATOR: Ms. Suzy Flippen

Transcription Service: Robin Warbritton

Post Office Box 262

Vilonia, AR 72173

(501) 796-6560

PROCEEDINGS RECORDED BY ELECTRONIC SOUND RECORDING.

TRANSCRIPT PRODUCED BY TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE.

Case 3:14-cv-00156-BD Document 18 Filed 06/25/15 Page 1 of 10 Case 3:14-cv-00156-BD Document 19 Filed 07/01/15 Page 2 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff: Mr. Greg Wallace

C/O Bartels Law Firm

Post Office Box 1640

Jonesboro, AR 72403-1640

For the Defendant: Ms. Angeline S. Reese

Social Security Administration

Office of the General Counsel

1301 Young Street

Suite A702

Dallas, TX 75202-5433

Case 3:14-cv-00156-BD Document 18 Filed 06/25/15 Page 2 of 10 Case 3:14-cv-00156-BD Document 19 Filed 07/01/15 Page 3 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

P R O C E E D I N G S

(Call to order of the Court.)

* * *

THE COURT: All right. Then I'm ready to rule in

this case unless there is something I have -- anybody wants to

add.

So, these are my findings and conclusions. First,

jurisdiction is proper. There is no dispute, all the

procedural prerequisites have been satisfied. The parties

have consented to my jurisdiction, so it's appropriate for me

to rule.

I have reviewed the parties' briefs, the ALJ's

decision, all of those portions of the record the parties have

cited, in addition to other parts of the record that I've

reviewed, including the entire transcript of the hearing

before the ALJ.

Standard of review is well settled; is there

sufficient evidence, considering the record as a whole, to

support the Commissioner's decision, and second, is there any

legal error?

Ms. Hogan is appealing the Commissioner's finding

that she was not disabled. And because the Appeal's Counsel

denied her request for review, the ALJ's April 15, 2013

decision is deemed the Commissioner's final decision.

She applied for disability benefits on October 14,

Case 3:14-cv-00156-BD Document 18 Filed 06/25/15 Page 3 of 10 Case 3:14-cv-00156-BD Document 19 Filed 07/01/15 Page 4 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

2011; first, alleging an onset date of January 1, 2001 -- 2007

-- excuse me -- but later amending the onset date to October

14, 2011.

The ALJ followed the five-step analysis that ALJ's

use in every case. He did find that Ms. Hogan had severe

impairments; carpel tunnel syndrome of the upper left

extremity, joint pain, lumbago, tremors, depression, anxiety

disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, and polysubstance

abuse in remission.

Based on these impairments, as well as non-severe

impairments, the ALJ found that Ms. Hogan could perform a

reduced range of light work. To accommodate her physical

impairments, the ALJ limited her to jobs that would require no

more than frequent reaching and handling with her left nondominant hand and wrist. In addition, she would not be able

to climb ladders or scaffolds and could not be exposed to

unrestricted heights.

To accommodate her mental impairments, the ALJ

limited Ms. Hogan to performing simple unskilled or rote

activities and to understanding, following, and remembering

concrete instructions. He further limited her to jobs

requiring only limited contact with the public, superficial

contact with coworkers and supervisors.

Ms. Hogan had no past relevant work, but a Vocational

Expert identified jobs that are available in sufficient

Case 3:14-cv-00156-BD Document 18 Filed 06/25/15 Page 4 of 10 Case 3:14-cv-00156-BD Document 19 Filed 07/01/15 Page 5 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5

numbers that a person with Ms. Hogan's limitations could

perform.

Ms. Hogan raises several points on appeal. She

challenges the ALJ's Residual Functional Capacity

determination. Her appeal focused primarily -- focuses

primarily on her mental impairments. And there's not a -- I'm

going to say there's not a serious argument that the ALJ erred

with respect to her physical limitations. Although she raises

some of those in her argument today, they're not seriously

challenged in her brief. And I'm -- to me, it's clear that

the limitations set out by the ALJ adequately accommodate her

physical limitations; that is, her carpel tunnel syndrome and

her tremors, as well as her joint pain, lumbago. She's --

she's limited to a reduced range of light work according to

the ALJ.

So, turning to her mental impairments, she makes

three general arguments. First, that the ALJ did not

adequately consider all of the medical opinions of the

consulting psychologist, Mary Ellen Zeoco, who is a Ph.D.

psychologist. Dr. Zeoco examined Ms. Hogan on December 20th,

2011. That part of her opinion that the ALJ should have

considered, according to Ms. Hogan, are her opinions that Ms.

Hogan, and I'm quoting here:

"Might sometimes have some

difficulty sustaining

Case 3:14-cv-00156-BD Document 18 Filed 06/25/15 Page 5 of 10 Case 3:14-cv-00156-BD Document 19 Filed 07/01/15 Page 6 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

6

concentration on basic tasks due

to emotional distress."

End quote. That she, quote:

"Might have some difficulty

sustaining persistence in

completing tasks due to emotional

distress."

End quote. And also that she, quote:

"Might have some difficulty

completing work-like tasks within

an acceptable time frame."

End quote.

Again, Ms. Hogan argues that the ALJ should have

given more weight to not only these opinions, but also to the

Global Assessment Functioning score, or sometimes we shorthand

that to GAF, the GAF Score of 45, which is -- is extremely

low.

Her second general argument is that the ALJ's

credibility determination was flawed. And in support of that,

she cites her long history of treatment and prescription

medications. She argues that the ALJ put too much reliance on

the state agency doctor, who did not examine Ms. Hogan, and

that would be Dr. Kevin Santulli, who is also a Ph.D.

psychologist.

And her third general argument is that the ALJ should

Case 3:14-cv-00156-BD Document 18 Filed 06/25/15 Page 6 of 10 Case 3:14-cv-00156-BD Document 19 Filed 07/01/15 Page 7 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7

have more fully developed the record if he found that Dr.

Zeoco's report was vague and ambiguous.

I do find that substantial evidence supports the

ALJ's decision. His -- first of all, his observation that Dr.

Zeoco's opinions were based heavily on Ms. Hogan's subjective

complaints is accurate. A large part of her report repeats

the history that Ms. Hogan herself gives. And I would point

out that Dr. Zeoco's opinion was reviewed by another

psychologist, as I've said, Dr. Kevin Santulli. So he had the

benefit of Dr. Zeoco's report when he fashioned his opinion.

I do think it's important to note that Dr. Zeoco also

noted that Ms. Hogan's activities of daily living, that

included she drives, she has a driver's license, she completes

activities of daily living without assistance, except that her

15 year old apparently helps her put on makeup because of her

tremors. She communicates in a socially adequate manner,

communicates in an effective and intelligible manner. She's

able to cope with the typical cognitive demands of basic worklike activities, manages her own funds. Her thought process

is logical, relevant, goal orient -- goal directed. She lives

with her mother and three of her five children, since

separating from what sounds like her no-account husband.

So, I think that there was no necessity for the ALJ

to ask Dr. Zeoco to clarify her opinion. The opinion about

possible problems were so speculative, including words like

Case 3:14-cv-00156-BD Document 18 Filed 06/25/15 Page 7 of 10 Case 3:14-cv-00156-BD Document 19 Filed 07/01/15 Page 8 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8

"They might sometimes; she might sometimes have some

difficulty." That's really not enough to support a finding

that she would have those problems.

Ms. Hogan herself testified at the hearing about her

activities of daily living and testified that she helps get

her children ready for school, she does laundry, picks up

around the house, cooks some, helps her children with their

homework, and puts them to bed after they have bathed and

gotten ready for bed. 

The ALJ was not required to adopt every part of the

opinion of this consulting doctor, psychologist, who saw her

only once. And he certainly was not required to give

controlling weight to that one GAF score of 45. The current

DSM, which is DSM-5, has eliminate -- has eliminated the use

of GAF scores, in part, because of their, quote:

"Conceptual lack of clarity and

questionable psychometrics and

routine practice." 

Moreover, the Social Security regs make it clear that

GAF scores are not dispositive.

The ALJ also properly took into account

inconsistencies in Ms. Hogan's testimony. You know, in spite

of her testimony about these disabling tremors, the ALJ

observed no tremors at the time of the hearing. And at the

time of the hearing, she had not been to see her primary care

Case 3:14-cv-00156-BD Document 18 Filed 06/25/15 Page 8 of 10 Case 3:14-cv-00156-BD Document 19 Filed 07/01/15 Page 9 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9

doctor for approximately five months. And there's no record

of her ever seeking treatment for her mental health problems

except her visits to her primary care physician.

Other inconsistencies are in the record. She refers

to lupus causing memory problems, but there's no diagnosis of

lupus that I found anywhere in the record.

The ALJ also properly noted her poor work history,

although I don't put a lot of -- a lot of weight on that, she

is 32 years old and had five children, she didn't have much

opportunity to find work. So, I'm not particularly dwelling

on that, although that is something that ALJs can properly

consider. And again, her lack of mental health treatment. 

So, because of all of this, I think that the ALJ

adequately accommodated all of her mental impairments that are

fairly supported by the record.

So, I find no legal error. And for the reasons we've

just discussed, I find there's substantial evidence to support

the decision here that Ms. Hogan was not disabled within the

meaning of the Social Security Act as of the time of the

hearing. Although there is certainly evidence on the other

side, I don't find that this is really a very close case. 

There is ample evidence here to support the decision.

So, we will have a transcript of the findings and

conclusions prepared. And that will be attached to an order. 

That will take a couple of weeks or so.

Case 3:14-cv-00156-BD Document 19 Filed 07/01/15 Page 10 of 11 Case 3:14-cv-00156-BD Document 18 Filed 06/25/15 Page 9 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10

I do want to thank the lawyers. Professor Wallace

always makes an excellent argument and makes the most out of

the record. There just was not much of a record in this case

to -- that he could work with in this case. Also, thanks to

Ms. Reese from the Social Security Administration. You did a

very good job, as well.

So, if there's nothing further. We are adjourned.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Your Honor.

MS. REESE: Thank you, Judge.

(Adjournment at 10:36 a.m.)

ELECTRONIC SOUND RECORDING CERTIFICATION:

I, court approved transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a

correct transcript from the official electronic sound

recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter.

/s/Robin Warbritton June 25, 2015 

Signature of Approved Transcriber Date

Robin Warbritton 

Typed or Printed Name

Case 3:14-cv-00156-BD Document 18 Filed 06/25/15 Page 10 of 10 Case 3:14-cv-00156-BD Document 19 Filed 07/01/15 Page 11 of 11