Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_15-cv-00090/USCOURTS-ared-5_15-cv-00090-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

Columbus Franklin Kinley II Plaintiff

v. No. 5:15‐CV–090‐SWW‐JTK

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner,

Social Security Administration Defendant

Recommended Disposition

Instructions

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

Susan W. Wright.  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 Wright

may adopt the recommended disposition without independently reviewing all of the

record evidence.

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 5:15-cv-00090-SWW Document 17 Filed 05/25/16 Page 1 of 9
Reasoning for Recommended Disposition

Colombus Franklin Kinley II seeks judicial review of the denial of his second

application for social security disability benefits.3  Kinley last worked as a deliveryman

for a seed company.4

  He was terminated for missing work days due to illness.5  Kinley

sought other employment, but was unsuccessful.  He applied for disability benefits and

based disability on a heart murmur, nerve problems, high blood pressure, bleeding

ulcers, and colon problems.6

The Commissioner’s decision.  The ALJ identified ulcerative colitis and

adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression as severe impairments.7  The ALJ

determined Kinley can do some unskilled light work.8  After consulting a vocational

expert, the ALJ determined jobs exist that Kinley can do and denied the application.9

3

SSA record at p. 98 & 105 (applying on Mar. 5, 2012 and alleging disability

beginning Dec. 25, 2011); id. at p. 124 (prior claim alleged disability beginning Aug. 2,

2009); id. at p. 128 (prior claim denied on Jan. 28, 2010).

4

Id. at pp. 33, 133 & 138.

5

Id. at pp. 33 & 132.

6

Id. at p. 132.

7

Id. at p. 14.

8

Id. at p. 16.

9

Id. at p. 20.

2

Case 5:15-cv-00090-SWW Document 17 Filed 05/25/16 Page 2 of 9
After the Appeals Council denied review,10 the ALJ’s decision became the

Commissioner’s final decision for the purpose of judicial review.11  Kinley filed this case

to challenge the decision.12  In reviewing the decision, the court must determine

whether substantial evidence supports the decision and whether the ALJ made a legal

error.13  This recommendation explains why substantial evidence supports the decision

and why the ALJ made no legal error.

Kinley’s allegations.  Kinley challenges most aspects of the ALJ’s decision:

(1) the consideration of ulcerative colitis, (2) the evaluation of his credibility, (3) the

weight given to medical opinions, (4) the determination that he can do light work, and

(5) the jobs the vocational expert identified.  He contends substantial evidence does not

support the decision.

10Id. at p. 1.

11See 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).

12Docket entry # 1.

13See 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 5:15-cv-00090-SWW Document 17 Filed 05/25/16 Page 3 of 9
Applicable legal principles.  For substantial evidence to exist, a reasonable mind

must accept the evidence as adequate to show Kinley can do some light unskilled

work.14  “Light work involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent

lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds.”15  The ALJ placed the following

requirements on light work:

(1) no climbing ladders/ropes/scaffolds;

(2) no exposure to hazards;

(3) incidental interpersonal contact;

(4) one or two step tasks that can be learned and performed by rote;

(5) little required judgment;

(6) simple, direct, concrete supervision; and

(7) SVP of 1 or 2 and can be learned in 90 days.16

The first two requirements flowed from physical impairment; the last five, from mental

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

decision for the following reasons:

1.  Kinley’s physical impairment responds to treatment.  Under social

security law, an impairment that can be controlled by treatment or

14Britton v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 328, 330 (8th Cir. 1990).

1520 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(b) & 416.967(b).

16SSA record at p. 16.

4

Case 5:15-cv-00090-SWW Document 17 Filed 05/25/16 Page 4 of 9
medication is not considered disabling.17  The year before he was

terminated, Kinley experienced periodic bouts of abdominal pain,

diarrhea, and nausea.  Initially, he was treated for gastroenteritis —

irritation of the digestive tract18 — but later, a diagnostic testing showed

colitis — inflammation of the colon.19  Symptoms of colitis include

diarrhea, abdominal pain, rectal bleeding, weight loss, and fatigue.  “Most

people go though periods of remission followed by periods of flare‐ups

when symptoms worsen.”20  Treatment focuses on controlling symptoms

to improve quality of life. 21

Medical records show treatment controlled Kinley’s symptoms, but Kinley

lacked medical insurance.  He sought treatment for flare‐ups, but received

no regular treatment.  During the 23 months for which benefits were

denied, Kinley went to a hospital emergency room five times for colitis

symptoms; diagnostic testing showed no colitis.22  Except for a visit when

his blood pressure was very high, he was treated and released.  Two

weeks before the hearing, a primary care physician characterized colitis as

stable.23  A reasonable mind will accept the evidence as adequate to

support the decision because it shows Kinley’s symptoms can be

controlled by treatment.

2.  Inconsistency supports the credibility evaluation.  Before determining

17Brown v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 535, 540 (8th Cir. 2004); Estes v. Barnhart, 275 F.3d

722, 725 (8th Cir. 2002).

18SSA record at p. 209 (Dec. 1, 2010), p. 375 (Dec. 4, 2010), p. 207 (Dec. 17, 2010) &

p. 218 (Jan. 9, 2011).

19Id. at p. 265 (Dec. 22, 2010).

20Davidson, Tish, Colitis, 2 The Gale Encyclopedia of Med. 1073 (4th ed.).

21Id. at p. 1071.

22SSA record at p. 532 (Aug. 9, 2012), p. 528 (Sept. 10, 2012), p. 401 (Sept. 13, 2012),

p. 518 (Jan. 16, 2013) & p. 445 (Mar. 4, 2013).

23Id. at p. 511 (May 13, 2013).

5

Case 5:15-cv-00090-SWW Document 17 Filed 05/25/16 Page 5 of 9
a claimant’s ability to work, an ALJ must evaluate the claimant’s

credibility because subjective complaints play a role in determining the

ability to work.24  An ALJ may discount a claimant’s subjective complaints

based on inconsistencies in the evidence as a whole.25

The ALJ properly discounted Kinley’s testimony about the severity of his

symptoms based inconsistency.  Kinley testified that he experienced 40

bowel movements daily,26 but medical evidence provided no basis for

such severe symptoms.  Diagnostic tests were negative.  Six weeks later,

he reported 5 bowel movements per day.  The temporal proximity of these

inconsistent reports, and the results of diagnostic testing, undermine

Kinley’s credibility.

3.  The ALJ properly reconciled medical opinion evidence.  Kinley

complains because the ALJ discounted the first medical examiner’s report

and relied on the second medical examiner’s report.  The ALJ must resolve

conflicts in medical opinions to determine a claimant’s ability to work.27

The ALJ may reject a doctor’s report if it is inconsistent with the record as

a whole.28

Kinley underwent two agency physical exams.  The first one occurred two

weeks after Kinley applied for disability benefits; the second one occurred

six weeks after the hearing.  The first examiner reported severe limitations

24Ellis v. Barnhart, 392 F.3d 988, 995‐96 (8th Cir. 2005).

25Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984).

26SSA record at p. 39.

27Dipple v. Astrue, 601 F.3d 833, 836 (8th Cir. 2010) (ALJ must resolve differences

between medical evaluations in light of objective evidence); Pearsall v. Massanari, 274

F.3d 1211, 1219 (8th Cir. 2001) (ALJ must resolve conflicts in medical opinions).

28Pearsall, 274 F.3d at 1219 (“The ALJ may reject the conclusions of any medical

expert, whether hired by the claimant or the government, if they are inconsistent with

the record as a whole.”).

6

Case 5:15-cv-00090-SWW Document 17 Filed 05/25/16 Page 6 of 9
as to the body as a whole due to abdominal pain, nausea, and diarrhea.29

The second examiner reported that Kinley can lift/carry 20 pounds

frequently and up to 100 pounds occasionally, walk/stand for 6 hours/day,

and sit for 8 hours/day.30  The reports created a conflict for the ALJ to

resolve.

The ALJ gave the first examiner’s report little weight because the

examiner relied heavily on Kinley’s subjective reports.31  As noted by the

ALJ, the first examiner’s medical findings were relatively normal in

contrast to the reported limitation.  Little weight was appropriate.32

The ALJ gave the second examiner’s report more weight, but discounted it

to the extent it was consistent with more than light work due to Kinley’s

history of ulcerative colitis.  The discounted report, diagnostic test results,

and treatment history support the determination that Kinley can do light

work.  To the extent Kinley relies on his doctor’s description of his colitis

as severe,33 that description characterized his condition at that time and

reflected a need for treatment; hospital admission was driven by

uncontrolled blood pressure.34  Testing showed no colitis.35

4.  The ALJ’s accounted for mental impairment.  Kinley didn’t rely on

mental impairment, but he vaguely challenges the ALJ’s reliance on

agency mental health experts.  The reliance was proper.

29SSA record at p. 280.

30Id. at p. 556.

31Id. at p. 17.

32Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 709 (8th Cir. 2007) (ALJ is entitled to discount

treating physician opinion when it’s based largely on claimant’s subjective complaints

rather than on objective medical evidence).

33SSA record at p. 484.

34Id. at p. 454.

35Id. at pp. 445 & 473.

7

Case 5:15-cv-00090-SWW Document 17 Filed 05/25/16 Page 7 of 9
Kinley underwent a mental health evaluation at the first physical

examiner’s recommendation.  The mental examiner reported mild

limitations in processing efficiency, but opined that Kinley could cope

with the mental cognitive demands of work like tasks.36  According to the

examiner, Kinley would have no difficulty with routine basic tasks.

Agency mental health experts determined Kinley can do work involving:

(1) incidental interpersonal contact; (2) tasks learned and performed by

rote; (3) few variables; (4) little judgment; and (5) simple, direct, concrete

supervision.37  The ALJ’s mental requirements are consistent with these

requirements.

5.  Vocational evidence supports the decision.  After determining the

claimant’s ability to work, the ALJ determines whether the claimant can

do his past work.38  To do so, the ALJ consults a vocational expert or

another resource like the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT).39

In this case, the ALJ questioned a vocational expert about Kinley’s past

work.  Because the vocational expert classified past work as heavy work,

the ALJ determined Kinley could no longer do his past work.  The ALJ

then asked about available unskilled light work.  The vocational expert

identified price tag ticketer, fast food worker, and cashier II.40  Kinley says

he can’t do these jobs, but his argument relies on his testimony about his

symptoms.  The ALJ properly discounted his testimony.  He suggests the

vocational expert’s testimony conflicts with the DOT, but he does not

identify a conflict.  The court need not address an unidentified conflict.41

36Id. at pp. 291‐92.

37Id. at pp. 300 & 328.

3820 C.F.R. §§ 404.1560 & 416.960.

39Id.

40SSA record at p. 51.

41See Vandenboom v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 745, 749 (8th Cir. Iowa 2005) (“We reject

out of hand [the claimant’s] conclusory assertion that the ALJ failed to consider whether

he met listings...because ] [he] provides no analysis of the relevant law or facts

8

Case 5:15-cv-00090-SWW Document 17 Filed 05/25/16 Page 8 of 9
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.  The ALJ made no legal error.

For these reasons, the undersigned magistrate judge recommends DENYING Kinley’s

request for relief (docket entry # 2) and AFFIRMING the Commissioner’s decision.

Dated this 25th day of May, 2016.

____________________________

United States Magistrate Judge

regarding these listings.”); Weikert v. Sullivan, 977 F.2d 1249, 1254 (8th Cir. 1992) (failing

to raise argument during administrative proceeding ordinarily prevents judicial review

of an issue).

9

Case 5:15-cv-00090-SWW Document 17 Filed 05/25/16 Page 9 of 9