Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_04-cv-02271/USCOURTS-arwd-2_04-cv-02271-0/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)

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

ELIZABETH A. CARPENTER PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL NO. 04-2271

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Elizabeth A. Carpenter 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 period of disability and disability insurance benefits

(DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI) benefits under the provisions of Titles II and XVI

of the Social Security Act (Act). 

Procedural Background:

The applications for DIB and SSI presently before this court were filed on January 7,

2003, alleging an inability to work since November 25, 2001, due asthma, depression, hand and

knee problems and suicidal thoughts. (Tr. 55-58, 157-160). For DIB purposes, plaintiff retained

insured status through June 30, 2003. An administrative hearing was held on February 25, 2004.

(Tr. 165-195). Plaintiff was present and represented by counsel. 

By written decision dated May 11, 2004, the ALJ found that plaintiff has an impairment

or combination of impairments that are severe. (Tr. 21). However, after reviewing all of the

Case 2:04-cv-02271-RTD Document 8 Filed 12/12/05 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

2

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

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

Regulation No. 4. (Tr. 21). The ALJ found plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity

(RFC) to perform the exertional requirements of light work. (Tr. 21). The ALJ found plaintiff

is restricted from working around dust, fumes or gases. (Tr. 21). From a mental standpoint, the

ALJ found plaintiff is limited to incidental contact with co-workers and the general public and

to performing only one-two step tasks. (Tr. 21). With the help of vocational expert testimony,

the ALJ found plaintiff could perform other work as an inventory clerk and a hand packager. (Tr.

22).

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

review of the hearing decision was denied on October 28, 2004. (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 have submitted

appeal briefs and this case is before the undersigned for report and recommendation. (Doc. #

6,7).

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

964, 966 (8th Cir. 2003). As long as there is substantial evidence in the record that supports the

Case 2:04-cv-02271-RTD Document 8 Filed 12/12/05 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

3

Commissioner's decision, the court maynot 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 her 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) whether the 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

economy given her age, education, and experience. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. Only

Case 2:04-cv-02271-RTD Document 8 Filed 12/12/05 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

4

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. §§ 404.1520, 416.920.

Discussion:

Of particular concern to the undersigned, is the ALJ’s RFC determination. The ALJ has

a duty to fully and fairly develop the record. It is incumbent upon the ALJ to establish by

medical evidence that the claimant has the requisite RFC and to question a claimant in detail

about her abilities. To properly determine a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ is “required to consider at

least some supporting evidence from a [medical] professional” See Lauer v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 700,

704 (8th Cir. 2001). The ALJ is free to disregard a treating physician; however, he must have

some professional medical evidence to support the RFC determination. 

After reviewing all of the medical evidence contained in the record, the ALJ concluded

that plaintiff could perform light work. In making this determination, the ALJ failed to address

Dr. Terry Brackman’s opinion that plaintiff’s “chest pain must be evaluated.” Dr. Brackman

performed a consultative general physical examination of plaintiff on April 1, 2003. (Tr. 121).

At that time among other complaints, plaintiff complained of sharp and stabbing chest pain. (Tr.

122). After examining plaintiff, Dr. Brackman diagnosed her with a history of asthma, untreated

major depression, post traumatic stress disorder and chest pain which needed a cardiac

evaluation. There is no indication that plaintiff underwent this evaluation and the ALJ failed to

discuss his reasoning for discounting Dr. Brackman’s opinion. While the ALJ is free to discount

an examining or treating physicians opinion he must discuss why he discounted the physician

Case 2:04-cv-02271-RTD Document 8 Filed 12/12/05 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

5

and provide medical evidence to support his findings. Based on the current record, we do not

find substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s RFC determination. 

After reviewing the entire record, it also appears that none of plaintiff’s

examining/treating physicians completed a RFC assessment for the time period in question. The

ALJ, in concluding that plaintiff could perform the exertional and non-exertional requirements

of light work, relied on a RFC assessment completed by non-examining, medical consultant,

indicating plaintiff's ability to perform within the medium work category. (Tr. 147-156) We

note, that the opinion of a consulting physician who examined the plaintiff once or not at all does

not generally constitute substantial evidence. See Jenkins v. Apfel, 196 F.3d 922, 925 (8th Cir.

1999). Therefore, on remand, the ALJis directed to address interrogatories to the physicians who

have evaluated and/or treated plaintiff, asking the physicians to review plaintiff's medical

records; to 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). 

On remand, we further suggest that the ALJ direct interrogatories to Dr. Patricia J. Walz

requesting that she complete a RFC assessment with regard to plaintiff’s mental capabilities

during the relevant time period. 

With this evidence, the ALJ should then re-evaluate plaintiff's RFC and specifically list

in the hypothetical to the vocational expert any limitations that are indicated in the RFC

assessments and supported by the evidence.

Case 2:04-cv-02271-RTD Document 8 Filed 12/12/05 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

6

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 12 day of December 2005. th

/s/ Beverly Stites Jones 

HON. BEVERLY STITES JONES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-02271-RTD Document 8 Filed 12/12/05 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>