Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_19-cv-00585/USCOURTS-ared-4_19-cv-00585-0/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 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

CHRIS RUCKER PLAINTIFF 

V. NO. 4:19CV00585 JM/PSH 

ANDREW SAUL, COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION1

 DEFENDANT

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION 

The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent 

to United States District Judge James M. Moody, Jr. You may file written objections 

to all or part of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) 

specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your objections; and (2) be 

received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of this 

Recommendation. By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of 

fact.

I. Introduction:

 Plaintiff, Chris Rucker, applied for disability benefits on July 21, 2017, 

alleging a disability onset date of November 23, 2016. (Tr. at 10). The application 

was denied initially and upon reconsideration Id. After conducting a hearing, the 

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Mr. Rucker’s claim. (Tr. at 20). The 

1 On June 6, 2019, the United States Senate confirmed Mr. Saul’s nomination to lead the Social Security 

Administration. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Mr. Saul is automatically substituted as the Defendant. 

Case 4:19-cv-00585-JM Document 13 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 6
Appeals Council denied his request for review. (Tr. at 1). The ALJ=s decision now 

stands as the final decision of the Commissioner, and Mr. Rucker has requested 

judicial review. For the reasons stated below, the Court should affirm the decision 

of the Commissioner. 

II. The Commissioner=s Decision:

The ALJ found that Mr. Rucker had not engaged in substantial gainful activity 

since the alleged onset date of November 23, 2016. (Tr. at 12). At Step Two of the 

sequential five-step analysis, the ALJ found that Mr. Rucker had the following 

severe impairments: prosthetic right eye, loss of vision in the right eye (monocular 

vision), congenital cerebral palsy, contractures of right ankle secondary to cerebral 

palsy, and status post Achilles tendon lengthening on the right. Id.

The ALJ found that Mr. Rucker’s impairments did not meet or equal a listed 

impairment. Id. Before proceeding to Step Four, the ALJ determined that Mr. Rucker 

had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform work at the sedentary level, 

with limitations. (Tr. at 13). He could occasionally use foot pedals and controls, and 

he was unable to perform a job that required wide peripheral vision and keen depth 

perception. Id.

The ALJ next found that Mr. Rucker was unable to perform any of his past 

relevant work. (Tr. at 19). The ALJ relied on the testimony of a Vocational Expert 

("VE") to find that, considering Mr. Rucker's age, education, work experience, and 

Case 4:19-cv-00585-JM Document 13 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 6
3

RFC, jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy that he could 

perform. (Tr. at 20). Therefore, the ALJ found that Mr. Rucker was not disabled. Id.

III. Discussion:

A. Standard of Review 

The Court’s function on review is to determine whether the Commissioner’s 

decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and whether 

it is based on legal error. Miller v. Colvin, 784 F.3d 472, 477 (8th Cir. 2015); see

also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). While “substantial evidence” is that which a reasonable 

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, “substantial evidence on the 

record as a whole” requires a court to engage in a more scrutinizing analysis: 

“[O]ur review is more than an examination of the record for the 

existence of substantial evidence in support of the Commissioner’s 

decision; we also take into account whatever in the record fairly 

detracts from that decision.” Reversal is not warranted, however, 

“merely because substantial evidence would have supported an 

opposite decision.” 

Reed v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 917, 920 (8th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). 

It is not the task of this Court to review the evidence and make an independent 

decision. Neither is it to reverse the decision of the ALJ because there is evidence in 

the record which contradicts his findings. The test is whether there is substantial 

evidence in the record as a whole which supports the decision of the ALJ. Miller,

Case 4:19-cv-00585-JM Document 13 Filed 03/27/20 Page 3 of 6
4

784 F.3d at 477. The Court has reviewed the entire record, including the briefs, the 

ALJ’s decision, and the transcript of the hearing. 

B. Mr. Rucker=s Arguments on Appeal 

Mr. Rucker contends that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ=s

decision to deny benefits. His only argument is that the ALJ did not give proper 

weight to the opinion of treating physician Dr. James Head, M.D. After reviewing 

the record as a whole, the Court concludes that the ALJ did not err in denying 

benefits.

Mr. Rucker had cerebral palsy that caused problems in his right foot. He 

worked for years as a painter even with problems from cerebral palsy. (Tr. at 13-14). 

At clinic appointments, Dr. Head observed only mild swelling and mild tenderness, 

with intact sensation and motor strength. (Tr. at 13, 264). Still, he found Mr. Rucker 

had severe equinus contracture, which required surgery. (Tr. at 262-263). Mr. 

Rucker had Achilles lengthening surgery on November 22, 2016. (Tr. at 256). 

Thirteen days after surgery Dr. Head observed that Mr. Rucker was doing well. (Tr. 

at 270). He said he should transition to weight-bearing activities and do physical 

therapy. (Tr. at 271-273). Dr. Head encouraged active range of motion exercises and 

stretching. (Tr. at 273). A physician’s recommendation to exercise suggests that a 

claimant has an increased functional capacity. See Moore v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 520, 

Case 4:19-cv-00585-JM Document 13 Filed 03/27/20 Page 4 of 6
5

524 (8th Cir. 2009). Mr. Rucker was placed in a walking boot and admitted that he 

was much better as a result. (Tr. at 268). He said that physical therapy helped, and 

in July 2017, he had excellent plantar flexion with only mild swelling. Mr. Rucker 

fractured his toe in April 2017, but a bone scan showed a healing fracture in May 

2017. (Tr. at 303-305). By October 2017, Mr. Ricker said he was doing very well. 

(Tr. at 316). In general, Mr. Rucker’s treatment was conservative, with orthotics, a 

boot, and anti-inflammatories. 

Dr. Head completed a medical source statement in August 2018. (Tr. at 372-

376). He limited Mr. Rucker in his ability to sit, stand, and walk, and said that he 

would miss more than four days a month from work. Id. Mr. Rucker argues that the 

ALJ should have given this opinion more weight. 

The opinion was on a short checkbox form with little reference to objective 

findings. A conclusory checkbox form has little evidentiary value when it cites to no 

medical evidence and provides little or no elaboration. Anderson v. Astrue, 696 F.3d 

790, 794 (8th Cir. 2012). And it was inconsistent with the improvement noted by Dr. 

Head, and Mr. Rucker’s positive response to treatment. Surgery was effective. 

Physical therapy helped. Impairments that are controllable or amenable to treatment 

do not support a finding of total disability. Mittlestedt v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 847, 852 

(8th Cir. 2000). Clinical examinations showed only mild tenderness. And Mr. 

Case 4:19-cv-00585-JM Document 13 Filed 03/27/20 Page 5 of 6
6

Rucker could do things like prepare meals, feed his pets, do laundry and dishes, and 

shop in stores. (Tr. at 197-199). Such daily activities undermine his claims of 

disability. Shannon v. Chater, 54 F.3d 484, 487 (8th Cir. 1995). The ALJ properly 

found Dr. Head’s statement to be unpersuasive. (Tr. at 17). 

VI. Conclusion:

There is substantial evidence to support the Commissioner=s decision that Mr. 

Rucker was not disabled. The ALJ gave proper weight to the opinion of Dr. Head. 

The decision, therefore, should be affirmed. The case should be dismissed, with 

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of March, 2020. 

___________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 4:19-cv-00585-JM Document 13 Filed 03/27/20 Page 6 of 6