Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_14-cv-00386/USCOURTS-ared-5_14-cv-00386-0/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

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

WILLIAM PEYTON PLAINTIFF

V. CASE NO. 5:14CV00386-BD

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner, 

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff William Peyton appeals the final decision of the Commissioner of the

Social Security Administration (the “Commissioner”) denying his claims for Disability

Insurance benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act (the “Act”) and for

Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits under Title XVI of the Act. For reasons

set out below, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. 

I. Background

On June 16, 2009, Mr. Peyton protectively filed for benefits due to

cardiomyopathy, depression, and hypertension. (Tr. 119, 313) An Administrative Law

Judge (“ALJ”) denied Mr. Peyton’s claims in a September 22, 2011 decision, but the

ruling was remanded by the Appeals Council. (Tr. 119-128, 135-137) Upon remand, the

ALJ held a hearing on February 19, 2013, where Mr. Peyton appeared with his lawyer. 

At the hearing, the ALJ heard testimony from Mr. Peyton and a vocational expert (“VE”). 

(Tr. 81-111) 

The ALJ issued a decision on May 16, 2013, finding that Mr. Peyton was not

disabled under the Act. (Tr. 20-36) On August 25, 2014, the Appeals Council denied

1

Case 5:14-cv-00386-BD Document 22 Filed 08/05/15 Page 1 of 5
Mr. Peyton’s request for review, making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final

decision. (Tr. 1-3) On October 22, 2014, Mr. Peyton filed this appeal. (Docket entry #2) 

The parties have filed their briefs, and the case is ready for decision.1

Mr. Peyton, who was forty-nine years old at the time of the hearing, has some

college credits and past relevant work as a clothing sales person, LPN, and HVAC

salesperson. (Tr. 86, 105)

II. Decision of the Administrative Law Judge2

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

since September 1, 2008, and had the following severe impairments: cardiomyopathy

status post pacemaker implantation, hypertension, and congestive heart failure. (Tr. 23) 

Mr. Peyton did not have an impairment or combination of impairments, however, that met

or equaled an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.3 (Tr. 24) 

According to the ALJ, Mr. Peyton retained the residual functional capacity

(“RFC”) to perform sedentary work with no significant bending, stooping, crouching, or

1The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. (#7)

2The ALJ followed the required sequential analysis to determine: (1) whether the

claimant was engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if not, whether the claimant had a

severe impairment; (3) if so, whether the impairment (or combination of impairments)

met or equaled a listed impairment; and (4) if not, whether the impairment (or

combination of impairments) prevented the claimant from performing past relevant work;

and (5) if so, whether the impairment (or combination of impairments) prevented the

claimant from performing any other jobs available in significant numbers in the national

economy. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)-(g) and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)-(g).

320 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 426.930(d), 416.925, and

416.926.

2

Case 5:14-cv-00386-BD Document 22 Filed 08/05/15 Page 2 of 5
climbing. (Tr. 25) The VE testified that telemarketing jobs were available with these

limitations. (Tr. 109) Accordingly, the ALJ determined that Mr. Peyton could perform a

number of jobs in the national economy and was not disabled. 

III. Analysis

A. Standard of Review

In reviewing the Commissioner’s decision, this Court must determine whether

there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the decision. Boettcher v.

Astrue, 652 F.3d 860, 863 (8th Cir. 2011); 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence is

“less than a preponderance, but sufficient for reasonable minds to find it adequate to

support the decision.” Id. (citing Guilliams v. Barnhart, 393 F.3d 798, 801 (8th Cir.

2005)).

In reviewing the record as a whole, the Court must consider both evidence that

detracts from the Commissioner’s decision and evidence that supports the decision; but,

the decision cannot be reversed, “simply because some evidence may support the opposite

conclusion.” Id. (citing Pelkey v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 575, 578 (8th Cir. 2006)). 

B. Mr. Peyton’s Argument for Reversal

Mr. Peyton asserts that the Commissioner’s decision should be reversed because

the ALJ: (1) failed to provide evidence of jobs existing in the national economy; and 

(2) improperly used the medical-vocational guidelines. (Docket entry #19)

3

Case 5:14-cv-00386-BD Document 22 Filed 08/05/15 Page 3 of 5
1. Jobs in National Economy

Mr. Peyton argues that the ALJ failed to provide evidence that work existed that he

could perform because the VE’s testimony “does not indicate an individual with the stated

residual functional capacity could perform telemarketing jobs.” (Id.) Basically, Mr.

Peyton takes issues with the question and answer exchange between the ALJ and VE. 

The ALJ asked the VE to consider a hypothetical person with the same work history and

education as Mr. Peyton who would be limited to sedentary work with no significant

stooping, crouching, or bending. After the VE testified that this hypothetical person

would not be able to do any of Mr. Peyton’s past relevant work, the ALJ asked if any

skills would be transferable. The VE testified that some skills would transfer, and the

hypothetical person could work as a telemarketer. (Tr. 107-109) 

As required, the hypothetical set out the limitations relevant to the impairments

and the VE understood the hypothetical. Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel understood the

hypothetical, because he followed-up with a question “add[ing] one more variable to the

Judge’s hypothetical.” (Tr. 109)

Mr. Peyton also argues that the VE’s response considered only general sedentary

work and did not consider the limitation of no significant bending, stooping, crouching,

or climbing. Even if this were true, the argument is without merit because the limitations

in the RFC “would not usually erode the occupational base for a full range of unskilled

sedentary work significantly because those activities are not usually required in sedentary

work.” Social Security Ruling 96-9p, 1996 WL 374185, at *7.

4

Case 5:14-cv-00386-BD Document 22 Filed 08/05/15 Page 4 of 5
2. Medical-Vocational Guidelines

Mr. Peyton also argues that the ALJ erred by basing his findings on the MedicalVocational Guidelines. Although the ALJ mentioned the Medical-Vocational Guidelines

in his opinion, he also cited and relied on the VE’s testimony There was no error.

IV. Conclusion

The Court has reviewed the entire record, including the briefs, the ALJ’s decision,

the transcript of the hearing, and the medical and other evidence. There is sufficient

evidence in the record as a whole to support the Commissioner’s decision. There is no

legal error.

Accordingly, Mr. Peyton’s appeal is DENIED, and the Clerk of Court is directed

to close the case. The hearing scheduled for August 13, 2015 is cancelled.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 5th day of August, 2015. 

___________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Case 5:14-cv-00386-BD Document 22 Filed 08/05/15 Page 5 of 5