Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_15-cv-00109/USCOURTS-ared-5_15-cv-00109-0/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)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

Tammie W. Burley Plaintiff

v. No. 5:15‐CV–109‐JM‐PSH

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner,

Social Security Administration Defendant

Recommended Disposition

Instructions

The following recommended disposition was prepared for U.S. District Judge

James M. Moody, Jr.  A party to this dispute may file written objections to this

recommendation.  An objection must be specific and state the factual and/or legal basis

for the objection.  An objection to a factual finding must identify the finding and the

evidence supporting the objection.  Objections must be filed with the clerk of the court

no later than 14 days from the date of this recommendation.1

  The objecting party must

serve the opposing party with a copy of an objection.  Failing to object within 14 days

waives the right to appeal questions of fact.2

  If no objections are filed, Judge Moody

may adopt the recommended disposition without independently reviewing all of the

record evidence.

1

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

2

Griffini v. Mitchell, 31 F.3d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1994) (failure to file objections

waives right to de novo review and to appeal magistrate judge’s findings of fact).

Case 5:15-cv-00109-JM Document 14 Filed 02/22/16 Page 1 of 12
Reasoning for Recommended Disposition

Tammie W. Burley seeks judicial review of the denial of her second application

for social security disability benefits.3  Burley claims she has been disabled since June

2009, when she left her job at a shoe factory.4

  Her reasons for leaving her job vary.5

Burley based disability on anxiety attacks, high blood pressure, attention deficit

hyperactivity disorder, obesity, and chronic leg, neck, and back pain.6

The Commissioner’s decision.  After considering the application, the ALJ

identified morbid obesity, osteoarthritis, diabetes mellitus, right hand/arm disorder

with pain, depressive disorder, and anxiety‐related disorder as severe impairments.7

The ALJ determined Burley can do some unskilled sedentary work.8

  After a vocational

expert identified available unskilled sedentary work, the ALJ concluded that Burley is

3

SSA record at p. 202 & 204 (applying on Jan. 5 & 6, 2012 and alleging disability

beginning June 30, 2009).  See id. at p. 215 (indicating that prior claim was denied on

Mar. 14, 2003).  Burley received benefits as a child based on the death of a parent.

4

Id. at p. 101 & 234.

5

Id. at p. 102 (her manager said it was best not to return to work because of high

blood pressure), p. 219 (she was let go because she couldn’t do her duties and there

wasn’t enough work), p. 241 (she hasn’t worked due to high blood pressure) & p. 279

(she quit because her supervisor wouldn’t let her stay home to care for an ill child).

6

Id. at p. 219.

7

Id. at p. 82.

8

Id. at p. 84.

2

Case 5:15-cv-00109-JM Document 14 Filed 02/22/16 Page 2 of 12
not disabled and denied the application.9

After the Appeals Council denied review,10 the ALJ’s decision became the

Commissioner’s final decision for the purpose of judicial review.11  Burley filed this case

to challenge the decision.12  The recommended disposition explains why the court

should affirm the decision.

Burley’s allegations.  Burley complains because the ALJ failed to discuss her

mental health treatment records.  She suggests the ALJ failed to explain why the

medical evidence doesn’t support her claim.  She maintains her primary care

physician’s (PCP) medical statement deserved more weight.  She contends these issues

led to an overstatement of her ability to work and to an erroneous conclusion that work

exists that she can do.  She says substantial evidence does not support the decision.13

Applicable legal principles.  When reviewing a decision denying an application

for disability benefits, the court must determine whether substantial evidence supports

9

Id. at p. 90.

10Id. at p. 1.

11See Anderson v. Sullivan, 959 F.2d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1992) (stating that “the Social

Security Act precludes general federal subject matter jurisdiction until administrative

remedies have been exhausted” and explaining that the Commissioner’s appeal

procedure permits claimants to appeal only final decisions).

12Docket entry # 1.

13Docket entry # 12.

3

Case 5:15-cv-00109-JM Document 14 Filed 02/22/16 Page 3 of 12
the decision and whether the ALJ made a legal error.14  For substantial evidence to exist,

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

that Burley can do some unskilled sedentary work and that work exists that she can

do.15

Sedentary work “involves lifting no more than 10 pounds at a time and occasionally

lifting or carrying articles like docket files, ledgers, and small tools.”16  The ALJ placed

the following limitations on sedentary work:

(1) no climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds;

(2) occasional stair‐climbing, balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and

crawling;

(3) no unprotected heights or excessive heat;

(4) frequent fingering and handling;

(5) a sit/stand option;

14See 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 an 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.”).

15Britton v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 328, 330 (8th Cir. 1990) (substantial evidence exists if

a reasonable mind will accept evidence as adequate to support conclusion).

1620 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(a) & 416.967(a).

4

Case 5:15-cv-00109-JM Document 14 Filed 02/22/16 Page 4 of 12
(6) occasional changes in workplace setting;

(7) incidental interpersonal contact;

(8) tasks with few variables, learned and performed by rote,

(9) little required judgment; and

(10) simple, direct, concrete supervision.17

For the following reasons, a reasonable mind will accept the evidence as adequate to

show Burley can work with these limitations:

1.  The record establishes no very serious functional limitation

preventing sedentary work.  Sedentary work “represents a significantly

restricted range of work.  Individuals who are limited to no more than

sedentary work by their medical impairments have very serious

functional limitations.”18

In the year before applying for disability benefits, Burley sought fairly

regular medical treatment.  She complained about anxiety and chronic

back/leg pain.19  After a fall, she complained about shoulder/arm pain.20

Treatment consisted of medication.

Ten weeks after applying for disability benefits, Burley underwent an

agency physical examination.21  The examiner reported moderate

17SSA record at p. 84.

18SSR 96‐9p, Pol’y Interpretation Ruling Titles II & XVI: Determining Capability to Do

Other Work‐‐Implications of a Residual Functional Capacity for Less Than a Full Range of

Sedentary Work.

19SSA record at pp. 331‐34.

20Id. at p. 334.

21Id. at p. 308.

5

Case 5:15-cv-00109-JM Document 14 Filed 02/22/16 Page 5 of 12
limitations,22 but identified no serious functional limitation preventing

sedentary work.  Burley demonstrated the ability to use her fingers and

hands.23  The ability to use the fingers and hands is probative of Burley’s

claim because unskilled sedentary work usually requires the use of the

fingers and hands.

Later treatment records document visits for medication refills,

management of diabetes and high blood pressure, efforts for weight loss,

and complaints of stress and anxiety.24  The ALJ correctly recognized that

the record lacks “the type and quantity of objective, verifiable clinical

evidence necessary” to demonstrate disability.25

2.  The ALJ accounted for nonexertional limitations by requiring a

reduced range of sedentary work.  Unskilled sedentary work also

involves other activities, classified as ʺnonexertional,” such as capacities

for seeing, manipulation, and understanding, remembering, and carrying

out simple instructions.26  The ALJ’s requirements account for

nonexertional limitations.

“Obesity is also a nonexertional impairment which might significantly

restrict a claimant’s ability to perform the full range of sedentary work.”27

The physical examiner and treating physicians identified obesity as a

limitation.  Burley consistently complained about back and leg pain.

Obesity can produce such symptoms.  The symptoms can limit “exertional

functions such as sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, and

22Id. at p. 312.

23Id. at p. 311.

24Id. at pp. 325‐29 & 366‐69.

25Id. at p. 86.

26SSR 96‐9p, Pol’y Interpretation Ruling Titles II & XVI: Determining Capability to Do

Other Work‐‐Implications of a Residual Functional Capacity for Less Than a Full Range of

Sedentary Work.

27Lucy v. Chater, 113 F.3d 905, 909 (8th Cir. 1997).

6

Case 5:15-cv-00109-JM Document 14 Filed 02/22/16 Page 6 of 12
pulling,” and the “ability to do postural functions, such as climbing,

balanc[ing], stooping, and crouching.”28

The reduction to sedentary work, and the exclusion of work involving

heat, respond to obesity.  The exclusion of work involving ladders, ropes,

scaffolds, unprotected heights; the limitation on stair‐climbing, balancing,

stooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling; and the need for a sit/stand

option, respond to complaints of back and leg pain.  The requirement for

frequent, versus constant, fingering and handling responds to right

hand/arm disorder.29  The other limitations — occasional changes in

workplace setting, incidental interpersonal contact, tasks with few

variables learned and performed by rote, little required judgment, and

simple, direct, concrete supervision— respond to mental impairment.

Burley suggests the mental requirements fail to account for mental

impairment because the ALJ failed to discuss her mental health records.

This is important, she says, because the ALJ incorrectly stated that she has

had no on‐going mental health treatment and that her treatment has

primarily consisted of medications prescribed by her PCP.  Although the

ALJ did not discuss Burley’s mental health records, “an ALJ is not

required to discuss every piece of evidence submitted.”30  The decision

suggests the ALJ may have been unaware that Burley sought mental

health treatment, but there’s no indication the result would have been

28SSR 02‐1p, Pol’y Interpretation Ruling Titles II & XVI: Evaluation of Obesity, ¶

8.

29The ALJ didn’t identify evidence supporting a right hand/arm disorder.  The

record contains a complaint of left shoulder/arm pain following a remote fall, SSA

record at p. 334, but Burley demonstrated no problems with her hands, fingers or arms

during the agency physical exam, id. at p. 311.  The record provides no basis for a right

hand/arm disorder.

30Black v. Apfel, 143 F.3d 383, 386 (8th Cir. 1998).  See also Wheeler v. Apfel, 224 F.3d

891, 896 n.3 (8th Cir. 2000) (“That the ALJ did not attempt to describe the entirety of

[claimant’s] medical history does not support [claimant’s] argument that the ALJ

disregarded certain aspects of the record.”).

7

Case 5:15-cv-00109-JM Document 14 Filed 02/22/16 Page 7 of 12
different if he had.31

Burley claims to have been disabled since June 2009, but she sought no

professional mental health treatment until December 6, 2012.32  Thus, for

most of the time during the time period for which benefits were denied —

41 of 52 months — Burley sought no professional mental heath treatment.

By the time of the decision, Burley obtained mental health medications

from a mental health professional and had attended a few individual

psychotherapy sessions.  Treatment notes show Burley experienced

situational stress flowing from marital discord and rearing five small

children.33  Importantly, treatment notes show treatment controlled

Burley’s symptoms.34  Symptoms controlled by treatment are not

considered disabling under social security law.35  

According to agency mental health experts, Burley can work within the

31To show harmful error, the claimant “must provide some indication that the

ALJ would have decided differently if the error had not occurred.”  Byes v. Astrue, 687

F.3d 913, 917 (8th Cir. 2012).

32SSA record at p. 348 (intake interview).

33Id. at p. 348 (Dec. 6, 2012, I’m here because I went through a rocky marriage, my

husband was very abusive), p. 353 (Jan. 9, 2013, she says her children aggravate her, she

has little control over the children in the office today), p. 358 (Jan. 18, 2013, she

continues to report verbal abuse from husband, she says she would be happier if he

moved out), p. 359 (Feb. 28, 2013, she’s frustrated over current living situation, she’s

forming a plan to ask husband to leave the home) & pp. 374‐75 (May 9, 2013, she

doesn’t want her mother in her or her children’s lives, she’s putting things in order for

husband to leave, she’s decided to allow husband to be in children’s lives).

34Id. at p. 361 (doing well on medications, a few problems but she is making it,

anxiety comes and goes), p. 370 (medication has helped with anxiety and depression) &

p. 401 (decrease in anxiety due to medication change, stressed over costs associated

with children’s return to school, coping strategies working for the most part).

35Brown v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 535, 540 (8th Cir. 2004); Estes v. Barnhart, 275 F.3d

722, 725 (8th Cir. 2002).

8

Case 5:15-cv-00109-JM Document 14 Filed 02/22/16 Page 8 of 12
ALJ’s parameters.36  Even if the ALJ was unaware that Burley sought

professional mental health treatment, no harm occurred because treatment

controls mental symptoms.  A reasonable mind will accept the evidence as

adequate because the ALJ’s mental limitations account for residual mental

symptoms.  

3.  The ALJ properly considered the PCP medical statement.  The ALJ

must consider all credible evidence, to include medical opinion evidence,

when considering whether a claimant is disabled.37  The Commissioner’s

rules instruct the ALJ to give a treating physician’s medical opinion

controlling weight if it is well‐ supported and consistent with the other

substantial evidence.38

Burley’s PCP prepared a statement reporting symptoms that, if fully

credited, are disabling.39  The ALJ incorporated several reported

limitations in determining Burley’s ability to work, but rejected other

reported limitations because the statement doesn’t necessarily support

disability, the PCP had seen Burley three times, the PCP appeared to

accept subjective allegations at face value, and the PCP didn’t take into

account all factors an ALJ must consider.40  These are good reasons if

supported by the record.

The record supports the ALJ’s reasons.  The regulations favor treating‐

physician opinions, in part, because treating physicians “are likely to be

the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal

picture of [the claimant’s] medical impairment(s)....”41  For this reason, the

36SSA record at pp. 292 & 346.

3720 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 & 416.927.

38SSR 96‐2p, Pol’y Interpretation Ruling Titles II & XVI, Giving Controlling Weight to

Treating Source Med. Opinions.

39SSA record at p. 376.

40Id. at p. 89.

4120 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2) & 416.927(c)(2).

9

Case 5:15-cv-00109-JM Document 14 Filed 02/22/16 Page 9 of 12
length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination are

important considerations in weighing a treating‐physician opinion.42  In

general, the longer the physician has treated the claimant, and the more

times the physician has seen the claimant, the more weight the opinion

deserves.43

The evidence before the ALJ showed the PCP saw Burley four times in 10

weeks.44  Treatment notes indicate the primary purpose of visits was

medication refills.  The most probative aspect of the treatment notes is the

absence of detail.  The notes document weight, blood pressure, pulse,

blood oxygen saturation level, and diagnoses.  These facts do not provide

the type of detailed, longitudinal picture that deserves controlling weight.

Instead of controlling weight, the ALJ assigned weight consistent with the

record as a whole.  In describing the impact of obesity, the PCP described

Burley as “too fat to walk” and “too fat to be in the heat.”45  He indicated

Burley can sit for six hours in an eight‐hour workday, but needs to shift

position at will.28  The requirement for sedentary work, the exclusion of

work involving excessive heat, and the requirement for a sit/stand option,

show the ALJ credited those limitations.  The limitations, however, do not

equate to disability, unless a claimant has a limitation that precludes

sedentary work.

The PCP reported such limitations.  According to the PCP statement,

Burley can use her hands, fingers, and arms for 30% of an eight‐hour

workday.  The reduction to frequent fingering and handling shows the

ALJ discredited the limitation.  The question for the court is whether

42Id.

43Id.

44SSA record at pp. 366‐68.  After the decision, Burley submitted new evidence

indicating the PCP saw Burley more than four times, id. at pp. 382‐91, but those records

document no disabling symptoms.

45Id. at pp. 376 & 379.

28Id. at p. 377.

10

Case 5:15-cv-00109-JM Document 14 Filed 02/22/16 Page 10 of 12
substantial evidence supports the determination.

The evidence contains substantial evidence.  When Burley applied for

disability benefits, she reported no limitations with the hands, fingers, and

arms.29  Treatment notes document no complaints about the hands,

fingers, or arms.  Burley demonstrated the use of the hands, fingers, and

arms during the agency physical exam.30  In the absence of medical

evidence documenting problems with the hands, fingers, or arms, the only

basis for the reported limitation is acceptance of subjective allegation at

face value.

The reported limitations suggest Burley can do no physical activity, yet

the PCP encouraged Burley to exercise.31  Recommending exercise

indicates Burley can do more than reported.32  The ALJ had a sufficient

basis for giving the statement less than controlling weight.

4.  Vocational evidence supports the decision.  After determining Burley

can no longer do her past work, the ALJ questioned a vocational expert

about available work.  The vocational expert identified document preparer

and charge account clerk as representative available work.33  The

availability of representative jobs shows work exists that Burley can do,

regardless of whether such work exists where she lives, whether a job

vacancy exists, or whether she would be hired if she applied for work.34

Because such work exists, Burley isn’t disabled under social security law.

29Id. at p. 249.

30Id. at pp. 310‐11.

31Id. at p. 366.

32Myers v. Colvin, 721 F.3d 521, 527 (8th Cir. 2013) (“In the absence of other

evidence in the record, a physician’s unrestricted recommendations to increase physical

exercise are inconsistent with a claim of physical limitations.”).

33SSA record at p 129.

3442 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(B).

11

Case 5:15-cv-00109-JM Document 14 Filed 02/22/16 Page 11 of 12
Conclusion and Recommended Disposition

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision because a reasonable mind will

accept the evidence as adequate to support the decision.  Burley’s impairments do not

prevent some unskilled, sedentary work.  The ALJ made no reversible legal error.  For

these reasons, the undersigned magistrate judge recommends DENYING Burley’s

request for relief (docket entry # 2) and AFFIRMING the Commissioner’s decision.

Dated this 22nd day of February, 2016.

____________________________

United States Magistrate Judge

12

Case 5:15-cv-00109-JM Document 14 Filed 02/22/16 Page 12 of 12