Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_14-cv-00046/USCOURTS-ared-3_14-cv-00046-0/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

April L. Anglin Plaintiff

v. CASE NO. 3:14CV00046 JTK

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner,

Social Security Administration Defendant

ORDER AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER

April L. Anglin seeks judicial review of the denial of her application for supplemental

security income (SSI). Anglin applied for SSI on October 26, 2011, with an alleged onset date of

January 10, 2010.1 SSI, however, is not payable prior to the date of application. Therefore,

Anglin must prove she was disabled as of, or after, applying for disability benefits;2 that is, she

must prove she was disabled as of, or after, October 26, 2011. Anglin previously applied for SSI

and disability insurance benefits (DIB) in 2007.3 These claims were denied and the case

dismissed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas in August 2011.4 Anglin

last worked in January 2002 as a manager at Dollar General.5

 Anglin bases disability on

herniated disc, bone degeneration, depression, anxiety, tremors in right arm and headaches.6

The Commissioner’s decision. The Commissioner’s ALJ determined that Anglin did not

1

SSA record at p. 193.

2

20 C.F.R. § 416.335; Cruse v. Bowen, 867 F.2d 1183, 1185 (8th Cir. 1989). 

3

SSA record at pp. 39 & 61. 

4

Id. at p. 60. 

5

Id. at p. 81. 

6

Id. at p. 213. 

Case 3:14-cv-00046-JTK Document 14 Filed 01/23/15 Page 1 of 12
engage in substantial gainful activity since the application date.7

 Anglin has severe impairments -

disorder of back, carpal tunnel syndrome, muscle pain in right arm, hypertension, anxiety, mood

disorder, personality disorder, somatoform disorder and depressive disorder.8

 None of Anglin’s

severe impairments meet the Listings.9 Anglin has the residual functional capacity to lift-carry

and push-pull up to 20 lbs occasionally and 10 lbs frequently, with the ability to sit 6 hours total

in an 8-hour workday and the ability to stand and/or walk 6 hours total in an 8 hour workday.10

She can occasionally stoop and crouch, but should never climb ladders; is able to understand,

retain, and carry out simple instructions and make simple work-related decisions; can perform

work where the complexity of tasks is learned and performed by rote, with few variables, and

little judgment; can only work in an environment with few, if any, work place changes; and is

able to perform work where interpersonal contact is incidental to work performed and where the

supervision required is simple, direct and concrete.11 The ALJ held that Anglin cannot perform

any past relevant work,12 but can perform the positions of photo copy machine operator, call

operator and information clerk, positions identified by the vocational expert (VE) as available in

7

Id. at p. 41. 

8

Id. 

9

Id. at p. 42. 

10Id. at p. 43. 

11Id. at pp. 43-44.

12Id. at p. 52.

2

Case 3:14-cv-00046-JTK Document 14 Filed 01/23/15 Page 2 of 12
the state, regional and national economies.13 Anglin’s application was denied.14 

After the Commissioner’s Appeals Council denied a request for review, the ALJ’s

decision became a final decision for judicial review.15 Anglin filed this case to challenge the

decision. In reviewing the decision, the Court must determine whether substantial evidence

supports the decision and whether the ALJ made a legal error.16

Anglin’s allegations. Anglin maintains that the ALJ’s denial of disability benefits should

be reversed because (1) the credibility determination is not supported by substantial evidence;

(2) the RFC is not supported by substantial evidence; and (3) the ALJ erred in determining that

Anglin can perform the jobs of call operator and information clerk. The ALJ’s decision is

supported by substantial evidence and, even if legal error occurred, it was harmless. 

Substantial evidence is “less than a preponderance but . . . enough that a reasonable mind

would find it adequate to support the conclusion.”17 For substantial evidence to exist in this case,

a reasonable mind must accept the evidence as adequate to support the determination that Anglin

13Id. at p. 53.

14Id. 

15See Anderson v. Sullivan, 959 F.2d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1992) (stating, “the Social

Security Act precludes general federal subject matter jurisdiction until administrative remedies

have been exhausted” and explaining that the appeal procedure permits claimants to appeal only

final decisions). 

16See 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 any 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.”).

17Jones v. Astrue, 619 F.3d 963, 968 (8th Cir. 2010) (internal quotations and citations

omitted). 

3

Case 3:14-cv-00046-JTK Document 14 Filed 01/23/15 Page 3 of 12
is not disabled.18

Credibility. Anglin asserts that the ALJ’s credibility determination is not supported by

substantial evidence. This argument is not persuasive. 

An ALJ must evaluate the claimant’s credibility because subjective complaints play a

role in determining the claimant’s ability to work.19 To evaluate Anglin’s credibility, the ALJ

followed the required two-step process and considered the required factors under Polaski,

16 so

the dispositive question is whether substantial evidence supports the credibility evaluation. The

ALJ’s determination that Anglin’s subjective complaints of pain and limitations were not

credible to the extent that they conflict with the assigned RFC is supported by substantial

evidence. 

The objective medical evidence supports the ALJ’s credibility determination because the

observations of Anglin’s physicians and the diagnostic testing fail to suggest disabling pain or

symptoms.17 In 2008, Anglin underwent a cervical fusion at C5-C8.18 In late 2009, Anglin

returned to her treating physician, complaining of left leg pain.19 An MRI was ordered, and her

18See Britton v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 328, 330 (8th Cir. 1990). 

19Ellis v. Barnhart, 392 F.3d 988, 995-96 (8th Cir. 2005). 

16See SSR 96-7p, Policy Interpretation Ruling Titles II & XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in

Disability Claims: Assessing the Credibility of an Individual’s Statements. 

17The medical evidence in this case includes treatment records that precede the relevant

time period, but those records provide relevant background for Anglin’s claim. The relevant time

period is from October 26, 2011 - the date of Anglin’s SSI application - to April 15, 2013 - the

day of the challenged decision. 

18SSA record at p. 313. 

19Id. 

4

Case 3:14-cv-00046-JTK Document 14 Filed 01/23/15 Page 4 of 12
physician noted that there was a protruding disc to the left at the L4-L5 level.20 The physician

opined that the protruding disc might be causing impingement on the L5 root.21 Anglin was

referred to physical therapy, and instructed to return if her symptoms worsened or did not

respond to physical therapy.22 Anglin did not attend physical therapy and did not seek further

medical treatment until approximately six months later when she complained of low back pain

and leg numbness.23 Anglin was referred back to the physician who conducted her cervical

fusion, MRIs were ordered and the treating physician recommended physical therapy.24 Three

MRIs were conducted - a cervical spine MRI, thoracic spine MRI and lumbar spine MRI.25 Each

test revealed only minimal, slight or tiny defects in Anglin’s spine.26 They did not reveal

anything that would account for disabling back pain. Indeed, Anglin did not seek treatment again

for her back until over a year and a half later. She also never sought any physical therapy. 

In October 2011, five days prior to the SSI application, Anglin complained of mid-lower

back pain, pain and numbness in her left arm and swelling in both ankles and feet.27 Her treating

physician assessed edema and unspecified neuralgia, neuritis and radiculitis and ordered an

20Id. 

21Id. 

22Id. 

23Id. at p. 306. 

24Id. at p. 307. 

25Id. at pp. 316, 318 & 320. 

26Id. 

27Id. at p. 344. 

5

Case 3:14-cv-00046-JTK Document 14 Filed 01/23/15 Page 5 of 12
electromyograph/nerve conduction study (EMG/NCS).28 The study revealed only mild left carpal

tunnel syndrome.29 Anglin was referred to an orthopaedist, but never scheduled an

appointment.30 Around the same time, Anglin sought treatment after a fall.31 She complained of

pain to her right lower leg, lower back, neck and back of head.32 She was prescribed a muscle

relaxer and was recommended an over-the-counter pain medication.33 Following these

appointments, it would be another seven months until Anglin would seek additional treatment for

any symptoms relating to her back or extremities. 

In July 2012, Anglin presented to her treating physician with swelling in her left foot.34

Her physician advised her to avoid a high salt diet and to increase water intake.35 Anglin

followed up approximately a month later and was prescribed Lasix and a potassium chloride

tablet.36 She was again told to avoid a high salt diet and to increase her water intake.37 If there

was no improvement, additional testing would need to be done.38 A subsequent progress note

28Id. at pp. 344-345. 

29Id. at p. 361. 

30Id. 

31Id. at p. 359. 

32Id. 

33Id. 

34Id. at p. 420. 

35Id. at p. 422. 

36Id. at p. 419. 

37Id. 

38Id. 

6

Case 3:14-cv-00046-JTK Document 14 Filed 01/23/15 Page 6 of 12
indicates that Anglin had no edema in her extremities and exhibited a full range of motion.39

With respect to Anglin’s back pain and impairments in her extremities, the records

establish that she sought only episodic treatment and did not follow the recommended course of

treatment. This weighs against her allegations of disabling pain.40 Although Anglin maintains

that she did not seek treatment due to financial concerns, the record establishes - as the ALJ

pointed out - that Anglin is financially able to maintain a smoking habit.41 This weighs against

her credibility.42 Anglin argues that her cigarettes are provided by family members, and,

therefore, her smoking does not reflect anything with respect to her finances. The fact remains,

however, that even if her smoking habit is supported by family members, it represents money

that could be spent on medical care if Anglin so desired. 

Providing further support for the ALJ’s credibility determination is the fact that the

records lack language suggesting that Anglin suffered disabling pain. In progress notes

addressing other medical issues, Anglin’s treating physicians noted that she denied back pain,

exhibited no acute distress and could take care of many of her needs - getting out of bed,

39Id. at p. 16. 

40See Edwards v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 964, 967 (8th Cir. 2003) (An ALJ may weigh the

credibility of a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain by considering multiple factors,

including whether or not the claimant seeks regular medical treatment.); Guilliams v. Barnhart,

393 F.3d 798, 802 (8th Cir.2005) (“A failure to follow a recommended course of treatment . . .

weighs against a claimant’s credibility.”).

41SSA record at pp. 344, 359, 418 & 421. 

42See Riggins v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 689, 693 (8th Cir. 1999) (rejecting claimant’s position

that he could not afford medication when “there is no evidence to suggest that he sought any

treatment offered to indigents or chose to forgo smoking three packs of cigarettes a day to help

finance pain medication.”) 

7

Case 3:14-cv-00046-JTK Document 14 Filed 01/23/15 Page 7 of 12
dressing, making meals, going shopping - by herself.43 The medical evidence also establishes

that Anglin received only conservative treatment for her back and extremity impairments.

Following her surgery, Anglin was treated with (or recommended) physical therapy, a muscle

relaxer and over-the-counter medications.44 For her edema, she was prescribed a low salt diet,

greater water intake, Lasix and a potassium chloride tablet.45 Such conservative treatment weighs

against her allegations of disabling pain and symptoms.46 

Although the records establish that Anglin consistently sought treatment for her mental

health issues, the progress notes fail to support her allegations that her mental impairments are

disabling. It appears that most of the progress notes from Anglin’s treating psychiatrist are for

“medication management” appointments.47 Although some of the notes indicate that Anglin is

suffering from depression and anxiety,48 there is little to suggest that her symptoms are disabling.

Further, the records establish that Anglin’s prescription medications remained relatively

unchanged throughout her treatment.

Further, in a number of medical records from other physicians, it is noted that Anglin’s

mental health is anything but disabling. In March 2010, Anglin’s treating physician observed

that Anglin’s anxiety and depression were doing well on the regimen prescribed by her treating

43SSA record at pp. 303, 418 & 421-422. 

44Id. at pp. 307 & 313. 

45Id. at pp. 419 & 422. 

46See Smith v. Colvin, 756 F.3d 621, 626 (8th Cir. 2014); Gowell v. Apfel, 242 F.3d 793,

796 (8th Cir. 2001); Black v. Apfel, 143 F.3d 383, 386 (8th Cir. 1998). 

47SSA record at pp. 336, 338-341, 369 & 425. 

48Id. at pp. 338-340, 369 & 425. 

8

Case 3:14-cv-00046-JTK Document 14 Filed 01/23/15 Page 8 of 12
psychiatrist.49 The following month it was noted that Anglin denied any depression, anxiety or

agitation.50 An October 2011 note indicates that Anglin suffered minimal depression, was under

no acute distress and was pleasant.51 The same observations were made in July 2012.52

The assessments completed by state physicians also weigh against Anglin’s credibility. In

February 2012, a state physician determined that Anglin’s physical RFC is nonsevere.53 This

assessment was affirmed by a second state physician.54 A Mental Diagnostic Evaluation was

completed in November 2011 in which a state physician concluded that Anglin 

is able to communicate and interact in a socially adequate manner. . . appears to

have the capacity to communicate in an intelligible and effective manner . . . is

likely to be able to cope with the typical mental demands of basic work-like tasks

. . . appears to have the ability to attend and sustain concentration on basic tasks . .

. appear[s] to have the capacity to sustain persistence in completing tasks [and] . .

. does appear to have the capacity to complete work-like tasks within an

acceptable timeframe unless the tasks exacerbate her pain issues.55

In a January 2012 Mental Residual Functional Capacity Assessment, a state physician

determined that Anglin is moderately limited in six of the twenty mental activities listed.56 In the

49Id. at p. 307. 

50Id. at pp. 303-304. 

51Id. at p. 344. 

52Id. at pp. 420 & 422. 

53Id. at p. 397. 

54Id. at p. 400. 

55Id. at pp. 354-355. 

56Id. at pp. 377-378. 

9

Case 3:14-cv-00046-JTK Document 14 Filed 01/23/15 Page 9 of 12
remaining fourteen, she was not significantly limited.57 The physician stated, “[Anglin] is felt

capable of basic work if so motivated. [Anglin] is able to perform work where interpersonal

contact is incidental to work performed, e.g. assembly work, complexity of tasks is learned and

performed by rote, few variables, little judgment: supervision required is simple, direct and

concrete.”58 This opinion was affirmed by a second state physician in March 2012.59

Although Anglin places great emphasis on the opinion of her treating psychiatrist in a

February 2013 Medical Source Statement,60 the ALJ declined to give the opinion controlling

weight. Anglin’s treating psychiatrist opined that Anglin was markedly to extremely limited in

multiple areas of understanding and memory, sustained concentration and persistence, social

interaction and adaptation.61 In the decision, the ALJ found that the opinion was “out of

proportion” with other substantial evidence and was based on “subjective complaints.”62 This

decision is supported by substantial evidence. As established above, the progress notes from

Anglin’s treating psychiatrist appear to accompany appointments for “medication management.”

There is little contained in them to support a conclusion that Anglin is markedly or extremely

limited in the areas assessed by the treating psychiatrist. Progress notes from other physicians

indicate that Anglin’s mental health is not disabling. Further, assessments from state physicians

57Id. 

58Id. at p. 379. 

59Id. at p. 404. 

60Id. at p. 429. 

61Id. at pp. 429-430.

62Id. at p. 51. 

10

Case 3:14-cv-00046-JTK Document 14 Filed 01/23/15 Page 10 of 12
fail to support the conclusions contained in the Medical Source Statement. It is also interesting to

note that in his remarks, the treating psychiatrist stated that Anglin “hasn’t been able to function

well enough to keep custody of her son,” and her “[m]ood swings [are] so severe that she pulled

[a] knife on boyfriend in past.”63 At the hearing Anglin testified that her sons are now adults and

she was never deemed mentally unstable to have custody of them.64 With respect to the knife

incident, Anglin testified she grabbed the knife when her boyfriend was drunk and “coming

after” her.65 

A reasonable mind would accept the evidence as adequate to support the ALJ’s

credibility determination. The credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. 

RFC. Anglin argues that the RFC is not supported by substantial evidence. The evidence

cited above supporting the credibility determination also supports the RFC determination. A

reasonable mind would accept this evidence as adequate to support the ALJ’s RFC. The RFC is

supported by substantial evidence. 

Work available. Anglin argues that two of the jobs identified by the VE - call operator

and information clerk - require significant interpersonal contact and therefore conflict with the

hypothetical presented by the ALJ. Accordingly, Anglin asserts, it was error for the ALJ to hold

that she can perform such positions. Anglin’s argument is without merit because if an error was

committed it was harmless. In addition to the positions of call operator and information clerk, the

ALJ determined that Anglin can perform the position of photo copy machine operator.

63Id. at p. 430. 

64Id. at p. 89. 

65Id. at pp. 89-90. 

11

Case 3:14-cv-00046-JTK Document 14 Filed 01/23/15 Page 11 of 12
Therefore, even absent the alleged error, the ALJ would have reached the same conclusion and

denied Anglin’s SSI application. 

Conclusion. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. If any legal error

occurred, it was harmless. For these reasons, the court DENIES Anglin’s request for relief

(docket entry # 2) and AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s decision. 

It is so ordered this 23rd day of January, 2015. 

____________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

12

Case 3:14-cv-00046-JTK Document 14 Filed 01/23/15 Page 12 of 12