Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_04-cv-00696/USCOURTS-ared-4_04-cv-00696-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

Case 5.05-cv-00024-GH-JTR Document 10 Filed 06/28/2005 Page 1 of 6 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

LITTLE ROCK DIVISION 

DAVID W. MALLEY 

v. 4:04CV00696 GHlJTR 

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, 

Commissioner. Social 

Security Administration 

PLAINTIFF 

DEFENDANT 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION 

INSTRUCTImS 

This recommended disposition has been submitted to United States District Judge George 

Howard, Jr. The parties may file specific written objections to these findings and 

recommendations and must provide the factual or legal basis for each ob.jection. An original and 

one copy of the objections must be filed with the Clerk no later than eleven (1 1) days from the 

date ofthe findings and recommendations. A copy must be served on the opposing party. The 

District Judge, even in the absence of ob.jections, may re.ject these findings and recommendations 

in whole or in part. 

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION 

Plaintiff, David id. Malley, has appealed the final decision of the Commissioner of the 

Social Security Administration denying his claim for Disability Insurance Benetits ("DIB") and 

Supplemental Security lncome ("SSI"). Both parties have submitted Appeal Briefs. and the 

issues are now joined and ready for decision. 

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

supported by substantial evidence on the record asa whole and whether it is based on legal error. 

Long v. Chafer, 108 F.3d 185, 187 (8th Cir. 1997); see also, 42 U.S.C. $405(g). Substantial 

evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 

conclusion. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389.401 (1971): Reynolds v. Chtrter, 82 F.3d 254, 

257 (8th Cir. 1996). Substantial evidence in the record as a whole entails a more scrutinizing 

Case 4:04-cv-00696-GH Document 14 Filed 07/05/05 Page 1 of 6
Case 5.05-cv-00024-GH-JTR Document 10 Filed 06/28/2005 Page 2 of 6 

analysis. Reedv. Barnhart, 399 F.3d Y 17, 920 (8th Cir. 2005). In assessir~g the substantiality of 

the evidence, the Court must consider evidence that detracts from the Commissioner's decision 

as well as evidence that supports it. However, the Court may not reverse the Commissioner's 

decision merely because substantial evidence would have supported an opposite decision. Id.: 

Sultan v. Barnf~art, 368 F.3d 857, 863 (8th Cir. 2004): Woolfv. Shalala, 3 F.3d 1210, 1213 (8th 

Cir. 1993). 

Plaintiff alleged disability' based on double by-pass heart surgery. (Tr. 105) After 

conducting an administrative hearing, the Adrriinistrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that 

Plaintiff had not been under a disability, within the meaning of the Social Security Act, at any 

time through January 15,2004. the date of his decision. (Tr. 20) On June 18,2004, the Appeals 

Council received and considered additional evidence and then denied Plaintiffs request for a 

rcview of the ALJ's decision, making it the final decision of the Commissioner. (Tr. 6-8) 

Plaintiff then filed his Complaint initiating this appeal. (Docket entry #2) 

Plaintiffwas 43 years old atthe time ofthe administrative hearing and had graduated from 

high school. (Tr. 27, 141) He has past relevant work as a quality control inspector. (Tr. 19, 1 1 7) 

The ALJ considered Plaintiffs impairments by way ofthe required five-step sequential 

evaluation process. The first step involves a determination ofwhether the claimant is involved 

in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. 5 404.1520(b)(2004). If the claimant is, benefits are 

denied, regardless of medical condition, age, education or work experience. Id. 

Step 2 involves a determination, based solely on the medical evidence, of whether the 

claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits claimant's 

ability to perform basic work activities, a "severe" impairment. Id., 5 404.1520(c). If not, 

'"Disability" is the "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any 

medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death 

or which has lasted or can beexpected to last for a continuous period ofnot less than 12 months." 

42 U.S.C. 5423(d)(l)(A). A "physical or mental impairment" is "an impairmentthat results from 

anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically 

acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques." 42 U.S.C. 8 423(d)(3). 

Case 4:04-cv-00696-GH Document 14 Filed 07/05/05 Page 2 of 6
Case 5:05-cv-00024-GH-JTR Document 10 Filed 06/28/2005 Page 3 of 6 

benefits are denied. Id. 

Step 3 involves a determination, again based solely on the medical evidence, of whether 

the severe impairment(s) meets or equals a listed impairment which is presumed to be disabling. 

Id., 5 404.1520(d). If so, and the duration requirement is met, benefits are awarded. Id. 

If claimant does not meet or equal a Listing, then a residual functional capacity ("RFC") 

assessment is made based on all the relevant medical and other evidence. Id.. Q: 404.1520(e). 

This RFC assessment is utilized at Steps 4 and 5. Id. 

Step 4 involves a determination of whether the claimant has sufficient RFC, despite the 

impairment(s), to perform the physical and mental demands of past relevant work. Id.. 

5 404.lj?O(f). If so, benefits are denied. Id 

Step 5 involves a determination of whether the claimant is able to make an adjustment to 

other work, given claimant's age, education and work experience. Id, $ 404.1520(g). If so, 

benefits are denied; if not, benefits are awarded. Id 

The ALJ found that Plaintiff: (I) had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since 

June l0.2002, his alleged onset ofdisability (Tr. 16): (2) had "severe" impairments (id.); (3) did 

not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or equaled a Listing (Tr. 18); (4) 

retained the RFC to perform a full range (all or substantially all) of work at the light exertional 

level over a sustained period oftime (id); and (5) was able to perform his past relevant work as 

aquality control inspector (Tr. 19). Thus. the ALJ concluded that Plaintiffwas not disabled. (Tr. 

20) 

In his Appeal Brief(docket entry #lo). Plaintiffargues that the ALJerred: (I) in making 

non-sprcific lindings and omitting othcr findings: (2) in finding that Plaintiff was capahle of 

performing his past relevant work; (3) in crafting an improper hypothetical question; and (4) in 

his credibility determination. Because the Court finds that the AL.l's credibility determination 

was insufficient, it is not necessary todiscussPlaintiff sother argumcnts, each ofwhich is closcly 

related to or flows from the ALJ's credibility determination. 

Case 4:04-cv-00696-GH Document 14 Filed 07/05/05 Page 3 of 6
Case 5.06-cv-00024-GH-JTR Document 10 Filed 06/28/2005 Page 4 of 6 

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ's credibility determination was insufficient because he did 

not make the express credibility findings required by Pola.~ki v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 

1984). (Plaintiffs App. Br. at 16-19) In Polaski, the Court held that: 

The absence of an ob.jective medical basis which supports the dcgree of severity 

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

thc 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 or reject theclaimant's subjective co~nplaints 

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

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

Id at 1322 (emphasis in original). 

The ALJ did not cite Polaski, nor did he set out the Polaski factors. The ALJ also failed 

to cite 20 C.F.R. $9 404.1 529 (c)(3) or 416.929(~)(3) (2003), the factors contained therein,' or 

2 Factors relevant to your symptoms, such as pain, which we will consider 

include: 

(i) Your daily activities; 

(ii) The location, duration. frequency, and intensity of your pain or other 

symptoms; 

(iii) Precipitating and aggravating factors; 

(iv)The type. dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication you 

take or have taken to alleviate your pain or other symptoms; 

(v) Treatment, other than medication, you receive or have received for 

relief of your pain or other symptoms; 

(vi) Any measures you use or have used to relieve your pain or other 

symptoms (e.g.. lying flat on yoclr back. standing for 15 to 20 minutes every hour, 

sleeping on a board, etc.); and 

(vii) Other factors concerning your functional limitations and restrictions 

due to pain or other symptoms. 

Case 4:04-cv-00696-GH Document 14 Filed 07/05/05 Page 4 of 6
Case 5.05-cv-00024-GH-JTR Document 10 Filed 06/28/2005 Page 5 of 6 

Social Security Ruling96-7p, which tracksPolaskiand 20 C.F.R. $5 404.1529 (c)(3) and 41 6.929 

(c)(3), and elaborates on them. (Tr. 18) Polaski sets forth requirements that an ALJ must follow 

in evaluating a claimant's credibility. Randolplr v. Barnhart, 386 F.3d 835. 841 (8th Cir. 2004). 

Because the ALJ failed to cite or discuss Polaski, the appropriate regulations, or S.S.K. 96-p. the 

Court is Icft to speculate about how he arrived at his credibility determination 

While the ALJ does mention a few ofthe appropriate Polaski factors, such as "activities 

ofdaily living" (Tr. 17), he states only that: 

I also conclude from the clairnant's testimony that his daily 

activities are greaterthan he reported in December, 2002, when he 

did notdo dishesand vacuum or walk for exercise (see Exhibit 5E, 

pages 1-2). In November 2002 he reported being able to lift more 

than 7 pounds (Exhibit 4E). 

Such a conclusory statement falls far short ofa meaningful discussion of Plaintiffs activities of' 

daily living. Similarly, the AIJ makes a fleeting reference to Plaintiffs "medications": "The 

claimant alleges takingavariety ofmedication for his symptoms, although there is some evidence 

of noncompliance due to financial issues (Exhibit 6F. page S)." (Tr. 17) Suffice it to say. this 

is not the kind of credibility analysis required by Polaski. Thus, the Court concludes that the 

record as a whole does not contain ample evidence that "a reasonable ~nind might accept as 

adequate to support [the] conclusion" of the ALJ in this case. Richardson v. per ale.^, 402 U.S. 

at 401 ; see also, Roberrson v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 1124, 1 126-27 (8th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS THEREFORERECOMMENDED that the finaldetermination oftheCommissioner 

be reversed and the case remanded to the Commissioner for a proper evaluation of Plaintiffs 

credibility and such other proceedings as may be required thereafter. This is a "sentence four" 

remand within therneaningof42 U.S.C. 3 405(g) and Melko~zyun v. S~rllivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1 991). 

DATED this I" day ofJuly. 2005. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 4:04-cv-00696-GH Document 14 Filed 07/05/05 Page 5 of 6
Case 5.05-cv-00024-GH-JTR Document 10 Filed 06/28/2005 Page 6 of 6 

Case 4:04-cv-00696-GH Document 14 Filed 07/05/05 Page 6 of 6