Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_19-cv-00393/USCOURTS-ared-4_19-cv-00393-0/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)

---

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

TERRI A. SOMERS PLAINTIFF 

V. NO. 4:19CV00393 BRW-JTR 

ANDREW SAUL,

Commissioner of Social Security Administration1 DEFENDANT 

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION 

The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent 

to United States District Judge Billy Roy Wilson. You may file written objections to 

all or part of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) 

specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your objections; and (2) be 

received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of this 

Recommendation. By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of 

fact. 

I. Introduction:

 Plaintiff, Terri A. Somers (“Somers”), applied for disability benefits on May 

20, 2016, alleging disability beginning on February 5, 2016. (Tr. at 14). After 

 

1 On June 6, 2019, the United States Senate confirmed Mr. Saul’s nomination to lead the Social Security 

Administration. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Mr. Saul is automatically substituted as the Defendant. 

Case 4:19-cv-00393-BRW Document 12 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 9
2 

conducting a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (AALJ@) denied her application. 

(Tr. at 25). The Appeals Council denied her request for review. (Tr. at 1). Thus, the 

ALJ’s decision now stands as the final decision of the Commissioner. 

For the reasons stated below, this Court should reverse the ALJ’s decision and 

remand for further review. 

II. The Commissioner=s Decision:

The ALJ found that Somers had not engaged in substantial gainful activity 

since the alleged onset date of February 5, 2016. (Tr. at 16). At Step Two, the ALJ 

found that Somers had the following severe impairments: disorder of the back, 

arthritis of the knees, and fibromyalgia. Id. 

After finding that Somers’s impairments did not meet or equal a listed 

impairment (Tr. at 19), the ALJ determined that Somers had the residual functional 

capacity (“RFC”) to perform work at the light exertional level, except that she could 

only occasionally climb, balance, crawl, kneel, stoop, and crouch. (Tr. at 20). 

Notably, there were no mental restrictions incorporated into the RFC. 

The ALJ found, based on Somers’s RFC and testimony from a Vocational 

Expert (“VE”), that Somers was able to return to her past relevant work as a water 

treatment plant instructor and a chemical radiation technician. (Tr. at 25). Both jobs 

have a Specific Vocational Profile of 6, making them skilled jobs. (Tr. at 85). In 

Case 4:19-cv-00393-BRW Document 12 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 9
3 

accordance with the ALJ’s Step Four determination, he found that Somers was not 

disabled. Id. 

III. Discussion: 

A. Standard of Review 

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

decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and whether 

it is based on legal error. Miller v. Colvin, 784 F.3d 472, 477 (8th Cir. 2015); see 

also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). While “substantial evidence” is that which a reasonable 

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, “substantial evidence on the 

record as a whole” requires a court to engage in a more scrutinizing analysis: 

“[O]ur review is more than an examination of the record for the 

existence of substantial evidence in support of the Commissioner’s 

decision; we also take into account whatever in the record fairly 

detracts from that decision.” Reversal is not warranted, however, 

“merely because substantial evidence would have supported an 

opposite decision.” 

Reed v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 917, 920 (8th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). 

It is not the task of this Court to review the evidence and make an independent 

decision. Neither is it to reverse the decision of the ALJ because there is evidence in 

the record which contradicts his findings. The test is whether there is substantial 

evidence in the record as a whole which supports the decision of the ALJ. Miller, 

Case 4:19-cv-00393-BRW Document 12 Filed 03/30/20 Page 3 of 9
4 

784 F.3d at 477. 

B. Somers=s Arguments on Appeal 

Somers contends that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ=s decision 

to deny benefits. She argues that the ALJ: (1) failed to fully develop the record; (2) 

erred at Step Two when he failed to find mental conditions to be severe impairments; 

(3) erred in his assessment of Somers’s subjective complaints; and (4) erred in his 

RFC determination. For the following reasons, the Court finds support for reversal, 

based upon the record development claim. 

The ALJ reasons that Somers did not have mental impairments that met the 

severity requirement, based on the fact that she only sought specialized psychiatric 

treatment at the end of the relevant time-period. However, treating physicians and 

consulting examiners found significant mental impairments throughout the period. 

 Brett Prince, Ph.D., examined Somers in February 2015. (Tr. at 503-506). 

Somers reported anxiety, depression, trouble with concentration, memory, and sleep, 

and poor energy and stress tolerance. Id. Dr. Prince diagnosed rule-out posttraumatic agitated depression, post-traumatic anxiety disorder, and cognitive 

dysfunction. (Tr. at 505-506). He recommended weekly psychotherapy and weekly 

biofeedback sessions. Id. He stated that Somers “continues to experience a very 

significant level of emotional-behavioral, sleep, and pain symptoms and distress 

Case 4:19-cv-00393-BRW Document 12 Filed 03/30/20 Page 4 of 9
5 

which markedly interfere with daily adaptive, vocational, and psychosocial/familial 

functioning, and she requires mental health care.” (Tr. at 506). He recommended 

increasing Cymbalta.2 Id. 

 On August 16, 2016, Victoria Miller, Ph.D., examined Somers. (Tr. at 369-

371). Somers reported irritability and anxiety, as well as disrupted sleep. Id. She said 

she had limited contact with people. Id. Dr. Miller diagnosed Somers with 

adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. (Tr. at 371). 

 The record contains a puzzling report from non-examining disability expert 

Barbara Hernandez, Psy.D., dated September 2, 2016. (Tr. at 95). She said that based 

on the medical evidence of record and Somers’s reported activities of daily living, 

“a severe [mental] condition is suspected, but considering Somers doesn’t have any 

mental health treatment, this case will be projected to August 16, 2017. By that date 

and with the correct and consecutive treatment and medication, it is expected that 

Somers’s emotional symptoms will not last 12 months [and that] they will decrease 

to a mild level or disappear.” Id. The ALJ gave Dr. Hernandez’s report great weight, 

in spite of her pure conjecture about conditions a year in the future. 

 Somers routinely reported depression, anxiety, and insomnia to her PCPs. (Tr. 

at 346, 394, 389, 394, 399, 540, 553). Dr. Neil Brodsky, M.D., diagnosed primary 

 

2 Somers treated her mental disorders with Cymbalta, Ambien, diazepam, and Valium. (Tr. at 592-598). 

Case 4:19-cv-00393-BRW Document 12 Filed 03/30/20 Page 5 of 9
6 

insomnia, dysthymic mood, and generalized anxiety disorder. (Tr. at 382). Dr. 

Jeffrey Hodges, M.D., diagnosed insomnia and anxiety disorder. (Tr. at 542). 

 Somers did see a therapist, Becky Taylor, LCSW, in the summer of 2018 (Tr. 

at 679-696). Somers filled out a mental illness screening form at that visit, indicating 

moderate to severe problems in most mental functional areas. Id. Ms. Taylor noted 

poor insight and depressed and irritable mood. (Tr. at 689). Ms. Taylor found that 

symptoms caused clinically significant distress or impairment in social, 

occupational, or other areas of functioning. Id. She noted continued difficulty 

managing life skills. Id. Ms. Taylor recommended weekly therapy. (Tr. at 683). 

 Somers said she could not do much more than watch TV and read as part of 

her daily routine. (Tr. at 282-285). Her fiancé testified at the hearing that he had to 

take care of most of Somers’s needs. (Tr. at 79-83). He mentioned a “fibro fog” that 

interfered with attention and concentration, causing slurred speech and unclear 

thinking. Id. Both Somers and her fiancé indicated that financial shortfall kept 

Somers from attending regular mental health therapy.3 Id. The ALJ did not mention 

the testimony from Somers’s fiancé. 

 

3 Failure to treat, in and of itself, does not mean a serious condition is not present, especially when a 

claimant cannot afford treatment. Individuals with chronic mental disorders commonly have their lives 

structured in such a way as to minimize stress and reduce their signs and symptoms, which may explain a 

lack of specialized treatment. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P. App. 1, § 12.00(E) (1999). And Somers did 

treat throughout the relevant time-period with psychiatric medication, and she consistently reported 

mental problems to her providers. 

Case 4:19-cv-00393-BRW Document 12 Filed 03/30/20 Page 6 of 9
7 

 The ALJ gave only some weight to the two examining specialists (Dr. Prince 

and Dr. Miller) and he gave great weight to the non-examining specialists, both of 

whom found no mental impairment. (Tr. at 95, 126). As a result, the ALJ determined 

that mental conditions were non-severe at Step Two. Because of that, he included no 

mental limitations in the RFC, and found that Somers could return to her past work. 

Her past jobs were SVP 6, which means skilled work. Skilled work requires specific 

qualifications, the use of judgment, and performance of mechanical or manual tasks. 

https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0425015017. Skilled work can include 

jobs that require a person to work closely with others, or with figures, facts, or ideas 

that require complex, abstract, or critical thinking. Id. It involves setting realistic 

goals and making plans independently, and it encompasses abstract ideas and 

problem solving. Id. It takes at least six months and often many years to train for and 

learn a skilled job. Id. 

 Somers argues that the RFC for skilled work outstripped her mental abilities. 

A claimant’s RFC represents the most he can do despite the combined effects of all 

of his credible limitations and must be based on all credible evidence. McCoy v. 

Astrue, 648 F.3d 605, 614 (8th Cir. 2011). In determining the claimant’s RFC, the 

ALJ has a duty to establish, by competent medical evidence, the physical and mental 

activity that the claimant can perform in a work setting, after giving appropriate 

Case 4:19-cv-00393-BRW Document 12 Filed 03/30/20 Page 7 of 9
8 

consideration to all of his impairments. Ostronski v. Chater, 94 F.3d 413, 418 (8th 

Cir. 1996). The ALJ bears the primary responsibility for assessing a claimant’s RFC 

– that is, what he or she can still do, in spite of severe impairments. The finding must 

be based on all relevant evidence in the record. Wildman v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 959, 

969 (8th Cir. 2010). 

 The ALJ did not afford proper weight to the two examining doctors’ opinions, 

which conclusively found serious mental impairments, and he ignored Somers’s 

therapist’s opinion that her mental conditions caused significant occupational 

impairment. The multiple diagnoses and treatment with psychiatric medication 

demonstrate that Somers had difficulty due to mental illness. At the least, the ALJ 

should have further developed the record by ordering a consultative examination, 

but the evidence, as it is, provides support for a finding that mental conditions were 

severe at Step Two. Beyond that, it appears far-fetched that a woman with “a 

significant level of distress that would markedly interfere with daily adaptive and 

vocational functioning,” (Tr. at 506, Dr. Prince), could perform work at the skilled 

level. This means that the RFC determination and the Step Four finding were clearly 

erroneous. 

III. Conclusion:

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the ALJ’s decision is not 

Case 4:19-cv-00393-BRW Document 12 Filed 03/30/20 Page 8 of 9
9 

supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ erred at Step Two and Step Four. 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner’s decision be 

REVERSED and the case be REMANDED for further review. 

DATED this 30th day of March, 2020. 

___________________________________ 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 4:19-cv-00393-BRW Document 12 Filed 03/30/20 Page 9 of 9