Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_14-cv-00542/USCOURTS-ared-4_14-cv-00542-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 865
Nature of Suit: Social Security - RSI (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

KIMBERLY RONE PLAINTIFF

v. No. 4:14CV00542-SWW-JJV

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner,

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

Instructions

The following recommended disposition was sent to 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 fourteen 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

fourteen days waives the right to appeal questions of fact.2If no objections are filed, Judge Wright

mayadopt the recommended disposition without independentlyreviewing all of the record evidence.

Recommended Disposition

Kimberly Rone seeks judicial review of the denial of her most recent application for social

1

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

2Griffini 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-00542-SWW Document 15 Filed 06/16/15 Page 1 of 6
security disability benefits.3 Rone last worked as a factory worker for Pace Industries.4 She claims

she’s been disabled since she quit her job in September 2010.5 She based her claim on seizures,

epilepsy, bipolar disorder, hepatitis C, back pain, and mental symptoms,6but she identified back pain

as the primary reason she can’t work.7

The Commissioner’s decision. The Commissioner’s ALJidentified severe impairments —

knee pain following arthroscopic knee surgery, Hepatitis C, carpal tunnel syndrome in both wrists,

seizure disorder, obesity, degenerative disc disease in the spine, and depressive disorder8 — but

determined Rone can do some light work.9 After questioning a vocational expert about work for a

person with Rone’s limitations, the ALJ determined that work exists that Rone can do, to include

her past work as a cashier.10 Because a person who can do her past work is not disabled under social

3SSA record at pp. 134 & 136. Rone has sought disability benefits beginning in 1995. The 

agency record reflects three prior applications. See id. at pp. 144, 172, 414, 508 & 777.

4

Id. at pp. 39, 158 & 202.

5Rone originally claimed she has been disabled beginning Jan. 3, 2004, id. at pp. 134 & 136,

but during her hearing, she amended her onset date to Sept. 15, 2010, id. at pp. 35-36.

6

Id. at p. 176.

7

Id. at p. 40.

8

Id. at p. 13.

9

Id. at p. 16 (placing the following limitations on light work: (1) occasional stooping,

kneeling, crouching, or crawling; (2) no climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; (3) no work hazards;

(4) incidental interpersonal contact; (5) one-to-two step tasks learned and performed byrote with few

variable and little judgment; (6) simple, direct, concrete supervision; (7) tasks that can be learned

in 30 days; and (8) no work in the food service industry).

10

Id. at pp. 22-23 (also identifying electronic worker, mail clerk, and office cleaner as work

Rone can do).

2

Case 4:14-cv-00542-SWW Document 15 Filed 06/16/15 Page 2 of 6
security law,11

 the ALJ denied the application.

After the Appeals Council denied a request for review,12the ALJ’s decision became the

Commissioner’s final decision for the purpose of judicial review.13 Rone filed this case to challenge

the decision.14

In reviewing the decision, the court must determine whether substantial evidence

supports the decision and whether the ALJ made a legal error.15 This recommendation explains why

substantial evidence supports the decision and why the ALJ made no legal error.

Rone’s allegations. Rone challenges one aspect of the ALJ’s decision — she says the ALJ

failed to consider her treating physician’s medical opinion. She says the ALJ should have found her

disabled because the physician reported disabling symptoms of her seizure disorder. Rone asks for

a remand because the ALJ failed to articulate the weight given the opinion. She maintains

substantial evidence does not support the opinion because theALJfailed to consider her symptoms.16

Applicable legal principles. “Under the Commissioner’s regulations, a treating physician’s

opinion is given ‘controlling weight’ if it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and

11

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4) (“If you can still do your past relevant work,

we will find that you are not disabled.”).

12SSA record at p. 1.

13

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

SecurityAct 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).

14Docket entry # 1.

15

See 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.”).

16Docket entry # 11.

3

Case 4:14-cv-00542-SWW Document 15 Filed 06/16/15 Page 3 of 6
laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.’”17

“[A]n ALJ may grant less weight to a treating physician’s opinion when that opinion conflicts with

other substantial medical evidence contained within the record.”18 Application of these principles

shows no error.

The challenged statement does not represent a treating physician opinion. The

Commissioner’s regulations favor treating physician opinions, in part, because treating physicians

“are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of

[the claimant’s]medical impairment(s)....”19 For this reason, the length of the treatment relationship

and the frequency of examination are important considerations in weighing a treating-physician

opinion.20In general, the longer the physician has treated the claimant, and the more times the

physician has seen the claimant, the more weight the opinion deserves.21

The challenged statement is based on one visit22 — Rone’s first visit with a neurologist. The

visit was generated for clearance for Hepatitis C treatment.23 During the visit, Rone reported two

to three seizures per week, each lasting for thirty to sixty minutes, followed by sleeping for two to

three days.24 The specialist recorded the reported symptoms on an agency form titled “Treating

17Dolph v. Barnhart, 308 F.3d 876, 878 (8th Cir. 2002).

18Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010, 1013-14 (8th Cir. 2000).

19

20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) & 416.927(c)(2).

20

Id.

21

Id.

22SSA record at pp. 511-12 (reflecting “first visit 7/27/11" and dating the statement as

“7/27/11").

23

Id. at p. 1002 (“will require new clearance letter for HCV treatment”).

24

Id. at p. 1012.

4

Case 4:14-cv-00542-SWW Document 15 Filed 06/16/15 Page 4 of 6
Physician’s Report for Seizure Disorder.” The form reflects only Rone’s subjective reports; those

reports are not entitled to controlling weight.

The physician observed no symptoms. When assessing a claimant’s subjective reports, an

ALJ must consider treating and examining physicians’ observations about a claimant’s symptoms.25

The neurologist’s statement is properly considered an examining physician’s statement, because the

statement was based on Rone’s subjective reports during one visit. At that point, no treatment

relationship was established. Rone says the ALJ failed to consider the neurologist’s statement, but

page nine of the unfavorable decision describes the statement.26 The statement, however, doesn’t

reflect medical observations, because the neurologist observed no seizure. Instead, the physician

admitted Rone for video-EEG monitoring to determine whether Rone’s “spells” are epileptic in

nature.27 Rone’s spells are not epileptic in nature.28 No neurological reason precluded Hepatitis C

treatment.29

Medication controls Rone’s seizures. “An impairment which can be controlled by ...

medication is not considered disabling.”30 Although Rone reported weekly seizures, six months

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

26SSA record at p. 19. Rone’s complaint may haave flowed from the neurologist’s signature. 

The neurologist’s name is “Greenfield.” The ALJ referred to the physician as “Greenthal.” The

physician’s signature on the last page of the statement looks like “Greenthal.” Id. at p. 512.

27

Id. at p. 1016. The physician characterized Rone’s episodes as “spells.” Monitoring

showed Rone’s spells are not epileptic seizures. Id. at p. 1184.

28

Id. at p. 1184.

29

Id. at p. 1016 (“There is not contradiction from a neurological perspective for her to

undergo therapy for HCV.”).

30Estes v. Barnhart, 275 F.3d 722, 725 (8th Cir. 2002).

5

Case 4:14-cv-00542-SWW Document 15 Filed 06/16/15 Page 5 of 6
later, she reported “doing well” with prescribed medication; she had experienced no “spells.”31 The

neurologist continued the prescribed anti-seizure medication, with plans to taper the medication in

six months if she remained seizure-free.32 The physician never tapered themedication, because Rone

requested a new neurologist.33 The record includes no treatment records from a new neurologist. The

record as a whole shows medication controls Rone’s spells.

Conclusion and Recommended Disposition

The ALJ did not err in considering the neurologist’s statement because, at the time, no

treatment relationship existed and the neurologist observed no symptoms. The statement provides

no detailed, longitudinal picture of Rone’s impairments. No basis existed for controlling weight. 

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

evidence as adequate to support the decision; the medical evidence reflects no disabling symptoms

and vocational evidence shows Rone can do her past work. For these reasons, the undersigned

magistrate judge recommends denying Rone’s request for relief (docket entry # 2) and affirming the

Commissioner’s decision.

Dated this 16th day of June, 2015.

____________________________________

JOE J. VOLPE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

31SSA record at p. 1213 (“Ms. Rone has not had any recurrence of spells.”).

32

Id.

33

Id. at p. 1250 (“Patient request[ed] to be referred to a different neurologist due to NOT

being able to get in to see physician.”).

6

Case 4:14-cv-00542-SWW Document 15 Filed 06/16/15 Page 6 of 6