Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_06-cv-02159/USCOURTS-arwd-2_06-cv-02159-2/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)

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Michael J. Astrue became the Social Security Commissioner on February 12, 2007. Pursuant to Rule 25(d)(1) of 1

 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Michael J. Astrue has been substituted for acting Commissioner Jo Anne

 B. Barnhart as the defendant in this suit.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

KIMBERLY EASTER PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL NO. 06-2159

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner 1

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Kimberly Easter brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking

judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

(Commissioner) denying her claims for period of disability and disability insurance benefits

(DIB) under the provisions of Title II of the Social Security Act (Act). 

Procedural Background:

The application for DIB presently before this court was filed on December 1, 2003,

alleging an inability to work since November 1, 2003, due to fibromyalgia, an anxiety disorder,

panic attacks, anemia and bilateral carpel tunnel syndrome. (Tr. 58-60). An administrative

hearing was held on April 14, 2005. (Tr. 540-568). A supplemental hearing was held on

February 23, 2006. (Tr. 569-581). Plaintiff was present and represented by counsel at both

hearings.

Case 2:06-cv-02159-JRM Document 18 Filed 10/24/07 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

2

By written decision dated April 19, 2006, the ALJfound that plaintiff has an impairment

or combination of impairments that are severe. (Tr. 17). However, after reviewing all of the

evidence presented, he determined that plaintiff’s impairments do not meet or equal the level of

severity of any impairment listed in the Listing of Impairments found in Appendix I, Subpart P,

Regulation No. 4. (Tr. 17). The ALJ determined plaintiff maintained the residual functional

capacity (RFC) to perform light work but could only frequently grasp, occasionally finger and

never perform rapid repetitive wrist action. (Tr. 17). From a mental standpoint, the ALJ found

plaintiff could perform work not precluded by the following: a more than satisfactory ability to

follow work rules and understand, remember and carry out simple instructions; a limited but

satisfactory ability to use judgment, function independently, maintain attention and

concentration, understand, remember and carry out detailed instructions and maintain personal

appearance; and a seriously limited but not precluded ability to relate to co-workers, deal with

the public, interact with supervisors, deal with work stressors, behave in an emotionally stable

manner, relate predictably in social situations and demonstrate reliability. (Tr. 17). With the help

of a vocational expert, the ALJ found plaintiff could perform other work as a motel maid. (Tr.

16, 18).

Plaintiff appealed the decision of the ALJ to the Appeals Council. Plaintiff's request for

review of the hearing decision was denied on August 25, 2006. (Tr. 4-7). When the Appeals

Council declined review, the ALJ’s decision became the final action of the Commissioner.

Plaintiff now seeks judicial review of that decision. (Doc. #1). Both parties were afforded the

opportunity to file appeal briefs; however, only defendant chose to do so. (Doc. # 17). This case

is before the undersigned pursuant to the consent of the parties. (Doc. # 4). 

Case 2:06-cv-02159-JRM Document 18 Filed 10/24/07 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

3

Applicable Law:

This court's role is to determine whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by

substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Ramirez v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 576, 583 (8th Cir.

2002). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance but it is enough that a reasonable mind

would find it adequate to support the Commissioner's decision. The ALJ's decision must be

affirmed if the record contains substantial evidence to support it. Edwards v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d

964, 966 (8th Cir. 2003). As long as there is substantial evidence in the record that supports the

Commissioner's decision, the court may not reverse it simply because substantial evidence exists

in the record that would have supported a contrary outcome, or because the court would have

decided the case differently. Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2001). In other

words, if after reviewing the record it is possible to draw two inconsistent positions from the

evidence and one of those positions represents the findings of the ALJ, the decision of the ALJ

must be affirmed. Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065, 1068 (8th Cir. 2000).

It is well-established that a claimant for Social Security disability benefits has the burden

of proving her disability by establishing a physical or mental disability that has lasted at least one

year and that prevents her from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. Pearsall v.

Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1217 (8th Cir.2001); see also 42 U.S.C. § § 423(d)(1)(A),

1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act defines “physical or mental impairment” as “an impairment that results

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

medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 42 U.S.C. § § 423(d)(3),

1382(3)(c). A plaintiff must show that her disability, not simply her impairment, has lasted for

at least twelve consecutive months.

Case 2:06-cv-02159-JRM Document 18 Filed 10/24/07 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

A fair ability is defined as the “ability to function in this area is seriously limited but not precluded.” (Tr. 494). 2

4

The Commissioner's regulations require him to apply a five-step sequential evaluation

process to each claim for disability benefits: (1) whether the claimant has engaged in substantial

gainful activity since filing her claim; (2) whether the claimant has a severe physical and/or

mental impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment(s) meet or equal

an impairment in the listings; (4) whether the impairment(s) prevent the claimant from doing past

relevant work; and, (5) whether the claimant is able to perform other work in the national

economy given her age, education, and experience. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Only if the final

stage is reached does the fact finder consider the plaintiff's age, education, and work experience

in light of her residual functional capacity. See McCoy v. Schwieker, 683 F.2d 1138, 1141-42

(8th Cir. 1982); 20 C .F.R. § 404.1520.

Discussion:

We would first like to address the ALJ”s finding that plaintiff could perform other work

as a motel maid. The ALJ states that he relied upon Dr. Patricia J. Walz’s consultative

evaluation findings dated July 6, 2005, when making his mental RFC determination. (Tr. 17,

488). Dr. Walz also completed a Medical Assessment of Ability to do Work-Related Activities

(Mental) on July 6, 2005. (Tr. 494). In this assessment, Dr. Walz found plaintiff has a fair2

ability to relate to co-workers, deal with the public, interact with supervisors, deal with work

stresses, understand remember and carry out complex job instructions, behave in an emotionally

stable manner, relate predictably in social situations and demonstrate reliability. When this

assessment was addressed at the hearing in February of 2006, the vocational expert testified that

the hypothetical individual with the above listed limitations would not be able to perform even

Case 2:06-cv-02159-JRM Document 18 Filed 10/24/07 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

5

unskilled work. (Tr. 579-580). Since the ALJ found plaintiff was unable to return to her past

relevant work, the burden shifted to the Commissioner to prove the existence of other jobs in the

national economy that plaintiff can perform. Sells v. Shalala, 48 F.3d 1044 (8th Cir. 1995). After

reviewing the hearing transcript there is some question regarding what definition the vocational

expert used when answering plaintiff’s counsel’s hypothetical questions and we believe remand

is necessary so that the ALJ can specifically address this testimony and how his finding that

plaintiff can perform work as a motel maid is supported by substantial evidence. 

We are also concerned with the ALJ’s findings regarding plaintiff’s physical RFC. The

record clearly establishes plaintiff has been diagnosed with fibromyalgia and has continued to

seek treatment for this impairment. Fibromyalgia involves pain in fibrous tissues, muscles,

tendons, ligaments and other “white” connective tissues. Diagnosis is recognized by a typical

pattern of diffuse fibromyalgia and nonrheumatic symptoms, such as poor sleep, trauma, anxiety,

fatigue, irritable bowel symptoms, exposure to dampness and cold, and by exclusion of

contributory or underlying diseases. See The Merck Manual, pp. 1369-1371 (16th Edition,

1992). Its cause or causes are unknown, there is no cure, and, perhaps of greatest importance to

disability law, its symptoms are entirelysubjective. There are no laboratorytests for the presence

or severity of fibromyalgia. The principal symptoms are “pain all over,” fatigue, disturbed sleep,

stiffness, and—the only symptom that discriminates between it and other diseases of a rheumatic

character— multiple tender spots, more precisely eighteen fixed locations on the body (and the

rule of thumb is that the patient must have at least eleven of them to be diagnosed as having

fibromyalgia) that when pressed firmly cause the patient who really has fibromyalgia to flinch.

Case 2:06-cv-02159-JRM Document 18 Filed 10/24/07 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

6

We point out that the Eighth Circuit has held, in the context of fibromyalgia cases, that

the ability to engage in activities such as cooking, cleaning, and hobbies, does not constitute

substantial evidence of the ability to engage in substantial gainful activity. Brosnahan v.

Barnhart, 336 F.3d 671, 677 (8th Cir. 2003); See Kelley v. Callahan, 133 F.3d 583, 588-89 (8th

Cir. 1998). Accordingly, plaintiff’s ability to perform these tasks does not automatically render

her capable of performing work. 

 We believe remand is further warranted so that the ALJ can more fullyand fairly develop

the record with regard to plaintiff’s physical RFC. On remand the ALJ is also directed to address

interrogatories to the physicians who have evaluated and/or treated plaintiff – including, Dr.

Richard K. Robinson-- asking the physicians to review plaintiff's medical records and complete

a RFC assessment regarding plaintiff's capabilities during the time period in question. If further

development of the record on the issue of plaintiff's RFC is necessary, the ALJ may also order

a consultative exam, in which, the consultative examiner should be asked to review the medical

evidence of record, perform examinations and appropriate testing needed to properly diagnosis

plaintiff's condition(s), and complete a medical assessment of plaintiff's abilities to perform work

related activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1517.

With this evidence, the ALJ should then re-evaluate plaintiff's RFC and specifically list

in a hypothetical to a vocational expert any limitations that are indicated in the RFC assessments

and supported by the evidence.

Conclusion:

Accordingly, we conclude that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial

evidence, and therefore, the denial of benefits to the plaintiff, should be reversed and this matter

Case 2:06-cv-02159-JRM Document 18 Filed 10/24/07 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

7

should be remanded to the Commissioner for further consideration pursuant to sentence four of

42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

DATED this 24 day of October 2007. th

/s/ J. Marschewski 

HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02159-JRM Document 18 Filed 10/24/07 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>