Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05074/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05074-1/pdf.json

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

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Michael J. Astrue became the Social Security Commissioner on February 12, 2007. Pursuant to Rule 25(d)(1) of 1

 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Michael J. Astrue has been substituted for acting Commissioner Jo Anne

 B. Barnhart as the defendant in this suit.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

RUTH HILL PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL NO. 06-5074

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner 1

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Ruth Hill brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial

review of a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (Commissioner)

denying her claims for supplemental security income (SSI) benefits under the provisions of Title

XVI of the Social Security Act (Act). 

Procedural Background:

The application for SSI presently before this court was filed on August 6, 2003, alleging

an inability to work due to a severe mood disorder, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and

hypertension. (Tr. 49-51). An administrative hearing was held on December 6, 2005. (Tr. 230-

251). Plaintiff was present and had a representative. 

By written decision dated January 26, 2006, the ALJ found that plaintiff has an

impairment or combination of impairments that are severe. (Tr. 18). However, after reviewing

all of the evidence presented, he determined that plaintiff’s impairments do not meet or equal the

Case 5:06-cv-05074-JLH Document 13 Filed 03/09/07 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

2

level of severity of any impairment listed in the Listing of Impairments found in Appendix I,

Subpart P, Regulation No. 4. (Tr. 18). The ALJ found plaintiff retained the residual functional

capacity (RFC) to lift and/or carry ten pounds frequently, twenty pounds occasionally; to push

and/or pull the same amounts; to sit for a total of six hours in an eight-hour workday; and to

stand and/or walk for a total of six hours each in an eight-hour day. From a mental standpoint,

the ALJ determined plaintiff is able to perform work where interpersonal contact is routine but

superficial, complexity of tasks is learned by experience with several variables and use of

judgment within limits, and the supervision required is little for routine tasks but detailed for

non-routine tasks. (Tr. 18). With the help of vocational expert testimony, the ALJ determined

plaintiff could perform other work as an escort vehicle driver, a production assembler and a

packager.

Plaintiff appealed the decision of the ALJ to the Appeals Council. Plaintiff's request for

review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council was denied . (Tr. 3-5). When the Appeals

Council declined review, the ALJ’s decision became the final action of the Commissioner.

Plaintiff now seeks judicial review of that decision. (Doc. #1). Both parties filed appeal briefs

and this case is before the undersigned for report and recommendation. (Doc. # 8, 11). 

Applicable Law:

This court's role is to determine whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by

substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Ramirez v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 576, 583 (8th Cir.

2002). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance but it is enough that a reasonable mind

would find it adequate to support the Commissioner's decision. The ALJ's decision must be

affirmed if the record contains substantial evidence to support it. Edwards v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d

Case 5:06-cv-05074-JLH Document 13 Filed 03/09/07 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

3

964, 966 (8th Cir. 2003). 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. Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2001). In other

words, 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. 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 her disability by establishing a physical or mental disability that has lasted at least one

year and that prevents her from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. Pearsall v.

Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1217 (8th Cir.2001); see also 42 U.S.C. § § 423(d)(1)(A),

1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act defines “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 her disability, not simply her impairment, has lasted for

at least twelve consecutive months.

The Commissioner's regulations require him to apply a five-step sequential evaluation

process to each claim for disability benefits: (1) whether the claimant has engaged in substantial

gainful activity since filing her claim; (2) whether the claimant has a severe physical and/or

mental impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whetherthe impairment(s) meet or equal

an impairment in the listings; (4) whether the impairment(s) prevent the claimant from doing past

relevant work; and, (5) whether the claimant is able to perform other work in the national

Case 5:06-cv-05074-JLH Document 13 Filed 03/09/07 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

4

economy given her age, education, and experience. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. Only if the final

stage is reached does the fact finder consider the plaintiff's age, education, and work experience

in light of her residual functional capacity. See McCoy v. Schwieker, 683 F.2d 1138, 1141-42

(8th Cir. 1982); 20 C .F.R. § 416.920.

Discussion:

In determining whether the ALJ properly disregarded plaintiff’s subjective complaints

of medication side effects including daily vomiting, diarrhea and nausea, the court must

determine if the ALJ properly followed the requirements of Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320,

1322 (8th Cir. 1984) (subsequent history omitted), in evaluating her credibility. 

The absence of an objective medical basis which supports the degree of severity

of subjective complaints alleged is just one factor to be considered in evaluating

the credibility of the testimony and complaints. The adjudicator must give full

consideration to all of the evidence presented relating to subjective complaints,

including the claimant's prior work record, and observations by third parties and

treating and examining physicians relating to such matters as:

1. the claimant's daily activities;

2. the duration, frequency and intensity of the pain;

3. precipitating and aggravating factors;

4. dosage, effectiveness and side effects of medication;

5. functional restrictions.

The adjudicator is not free to accept orreject the claimant's subjective complaints

solely on the basis of personal observations. Subjective complaints may be

discounted if there are inconsistencies in the evidence as a whole. 

Polaski, 739 F.2d at 1322 (emphasis in original).

However, in addition to the requirement that the ALJ consider the plaintiff’s allegations

of side effects, he also has a statutory duty to assess the credibility of plaintiff and other

witnesses. Nelson v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 363, 366 (8th Cir. 1992). The ALJ may discredit

Case 5:06-cv-05074-JLH Document 13 Filed 03/09/07 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

The main symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome are crampy pain in the abdomen and painful diarrhea or

2

 constipation. see The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy 841-842 (16th ed. 1992) (Robert Berkow, M.D. et

 al. eds.).

5

subjective complaints that are inconsistent with the record as a whole. Ownbey v. Shalala, 5

F.3d 342, 344 (8th Cir. 1993). 

When determining plaintiff maintained the RFC to perform light work, the ALJ failed

to develop the evidence as to the side effects caused by plaintiff’s medication. Bowman v.

Barnhart, 310 F.3d 1080, 1085 (8 Cir. 2002). Plaintiff reported in the forms completed for the th

administration that her medication caused nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. (Tr. 70, 85, 90, 96,

103, 107). Plaintiff also testified at the December 2005 hearing that she experienced nausea,

vomiting and diarrhea on a daily basis and that it was caused by her medication. (Tr. 238-239).

In his decision the ALJ notes a medical record dated November 3, 2003, reporting that

plaintiff’s nausea and vomiting were due to her continued smoking. (Tr. 157). However, on July

21, 2004, and October 13, 2005, plaintiff’s treating physicians indicate that plaintiff’s nausea,

vomiting and diarrhea were side effects of plaintiff’s medication. (Tr. 195, 219). Medical

records further reveal that plaintiff was diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome in August of 2

2004. (Tr. 193). 

Therefore, because the ALJ improperly discredited plaintiff’s subjective complaints

considering the impact of the side effects caused by her medications, we find that his conclusion

that plaintiff is not disabled is not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

Accordingly, we believe remand is necessary in order to allow the ALJ to further develop the

record regarding plaintiff’s medication side effects. On remand the ALJ should re-evaluate

plaintiff's subjective allegations in accordance with Polaski, 739 F.2d at 1322, specifically

Case 5:06-cv-05074-JLH Document 13 Filed 03/09/07 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

6

discussing each Polaski factor in the context of plaintiff's particular case.

While on remand, we strongly suggest that ALJ address interrogatories to plaintiff’s

treating and/or examining physicians, including Dr. Conover, asking them to review plaintiff’s

medical records, complete a RFC assessment regarding plaintiff’s capabilities during the time

period in question, and to give the objective basis for their opinions so that an informed decision

can be made regarding plaintiff’s ability to perform basic work activities on a sustained basis

during the relevant time period in question. Chitwood v. Bowen, 788 F.2d 1376, 1378 n.1 (8th

Cir. 1986); Dozier v. Heckler, 754 F.2d 274, 276 (8th Cir. 1985). 

After considering this evidence, the ALJ should then re-evaluate plaintiff's RFC and

specifically list in a hypothetical to a vocational expert any limitations that are indicated in the

RFC assessments and supported by the evidence.

Conclusion:

Based on the foregoing, we recommend reversing the decision of the ALJ and remanding

this case to the Commissioner for further consideration pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C.

§ 405(g). The parties have ten days from receipt of our 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.

DATED this 9 day of March 2007. th

/s/ J. Marschewski 

HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 5:06-cv-05074-JLH Document 13 Filed 03/09/07 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>