Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_15-cv-00403/USCOURTS-ared-3_15-cv-00403-1/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

JONESBORO DIVISION

DORIS THOMAS PLAINTIFF

VS. CASE NO. 3:15CV00403 PSH

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner,

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

ORDER

 Plaintiff Doris Thomas (“Thomas”), in her appeal of the final decision of the Commissioner

of the Social Security Administration (defendant “Colvin”) to deny her claim for Disability

Insurance benefits (DIB), contends the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in finding she could

perform her past relevant work, and in failing to fully and fairly develop the record. The parties

have ably summarized the medical records and the testimony given at the administrative hearing

conducted on August 20, 2014. (Tr. 36-56). The Court has carefully reviewed the record to

determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support Colvin’s

decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Timing is a key feature in this case. Thomas protectively filed for DIB on September 16,

2013, alleging disability since June 30, 2007. Since her insured status expired on December 31,

2012, her burden was to demonstrate she was disabled between June 30, 2007, and December 31,

2012. The ALJ stressed this fact at the administrative hearing1

 and in his written decision2.

1

The ALJ stated, “Remember, too, m’am, we’re talking about on or before December 31, 2012.” (Tr.

1

Case 3:15-cv-00403-PSH Document 17 Filed 08/31/16 Page 1 of 5
Thomas’ primary argument for reversal is the ALJ erred in finding she could perform her

past relevant work as a hand packager and hospital housekeeper. Since the ALJ relied heavily on

the scarcity of medical evidence, we briefly recount the medical records during the relevant time

period:

8/22/08 Thomas seen by treating physician Osborne. Thomas complained of arthritis

in fingers and noted she could not afford previously prescribed medicine

(Mobic). Osborne recorded that Thomas did not show for last appointment,

and also informed Thomas of $4 plan at Wal-Mart to obtain Mobic. Osborne

noted nodules on the first finger of left hand and second finger of right hand. 

Thomas was previously last seen by Osborne in May of 2007. (Tr. 279-

283).

10/10/08 Thomas seen by Osborne for follow up on blood pressure. (Tr. 276-278).

02/06/09 Thomas seen by Osborne, complaining of not having her menstrual period

for three months. (Tr. 273-275).

08/21/09 Thomas seen by Osborne for possible spider bite. (270-272).

12/18/09 Thomas seen by Osborne for check-up. Osborne’s records reflect Thomas

stated she “has been doing good” although her blood pressure “runs a little

high.” (Tr. 267-269).

08/26/10 Thomas seen by Osborne for yearly examination. Records show Thomas was

doing fine on her prescriptions with no new complaints. (Tr. 233-236).

07/19/11 Thomas seen by Osborne for ear pain. (Tr. 229-232).

03/09/12 Thomas presents to Wagner Medical Clinic to establish care. Per her history,

Thomas complained of elevated blood pressure, increased pain in her hands

from osteoarthritis, and pain in the arch of her left foot. (Tr. 362-365). Dr.

Wagner noted no clubbing, cyanosis or edema on Thomas’ extremities. (Tr.

363).

45).

2

Noting Thomas’ good work history prior to 2007, the ALJ continued, “Unfortunately, she just does

not have a lot of medical evidence to support her claim prior to the date her insured status expired.” 

(Tr. 30).

2

Case 3:15-cv-00403-PSH Document 17 Filed 08/31/16 Page 2 of 5
04/09/12 Thomas seen for follow up with Dr. Wagner, who again noted no cyanosis,

clubbing or edema of the extremities. Dr. Wagner assessed her existing

problem of hypertension as unchanged, and noted new problems of abnormal

mammogram, diabetes mellitus - borderline, and hypothyroidism. (Tr. 349-

350).

05/21/12 Thomas, seen for follow up with Dr. Wagner, also complained of right

shoulder pain, radiating down her arm and shoulder. Dr. Wagner recorded

that Thomas was already taking Mobic. (Tr. 346-348).

08/16/12 Thomas seen by Dr. Wagner for follow up on thyroid issues and for a skin

tag on her right eye. (Tr. 338-339).

11/15/12 Thomas seen by Dr. Wagner for removal of skin tag and reevaluation of

thyroid levels. (Tr. 331-333). 

Some of Thomas’ testimony concerned her impairments after December 31, 2012. Also,

many of the medical records pertain to treatment after the expiration of her insured status. The ALJ

cited medical records (Exhibits 2F, 7F, 8F, and 9F) after December 31, 2012, noting that he could

not consider these reports in reaching his decision. (Tr. 30). Thomas did explain that her biggest

problem was hand and back pain, that she had that impairment in 2012, and her condition had slowly

worsened. (Tr. 45-48). 

Ability to Perform Past Relevant Work: The ALJ concluded Thomas capable of

performing her past relevant jobs as a hand packager or hotel housekeeper, both of which were

unskilled jobs performed at the medium exertional level. Thomas argues that it was inconsistent for

the ALJ to find her osteoarthritis was a severe impairment but that she could nonetheless perform

the full range of medium work. This argument is without merit. An ALJ’s finding of a severe

impairment at step two does not automatically limit the claimant to less than medium work. Instead, 

the ALJ is tasked with determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”), which is a

consideration of a claimant’s ability to perform work despite her limitations, both severe and non3

Case 3:15-cv-00403-PSH Document 17 Filed 08/31/16 Page 3 of 5
severe. Here, the ALJ found Thomas capable of performing the full range of medium work, despite

her impairments. The key inquiry, then, is not the existence of a severe impairment but whether the

RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence. 

The RFC need not mirror the findings of any one physician, as the ALJ is not bound to

choose any one physician and adopt his/her findings as the appropriate RFC. Instead, it “is the

ALJ’s responsibility to determine a claimant’s RFC based on all relevant evidence, including

medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and claimant’s own descriptions of

his limitations.” Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1217 (8th Cir. 2001). Here, the ALJ found

Thomas capable of performing medium work. Given the paucity of medical evidence and the

thorough analysis performed by the ALJ, we find substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC

findings.

Thomas contends the ALJ should have found the lack of medical evidence was due to her

lack of financial resources. The flaw with this argument is that although the medical records show

some financial issues were present (e.g., Thomas’ need for and provision of inexpensive

medications) there is no showing that her means prevented her from seeking or obtaining care. She

was able to see Drs. Osborne and Wagner numerous times during the relevant time period. 

Typically, she saw these doctors for ailments other than her allegedly disabling osteoarthritis. There

is no merit to Thomas’ claim of error in the ALJ’s treatment of her financial circumstances.

Finally, Thomas urges the ALJ should have more fully developed the record. It is undisputed

that the ALJ has a duty to fully and fairly develop the record, even when the plaintiff is represented

by counsel. Thomas had counsel at the administrative hearing, and is represented by counsel in this

case. Specifically, Thomas contends the ALJ should have contacted doctors who treated her prior

4

Case 3:15-cv-00403-PSH Document 17 Filed 08/31/16 Page 4 of 5
to December 2012 or the ALJ should have sent Thomas for a consultative examination. There is no

merit to either of these contentions. The medical records of Drs. Osborne and Wagner during the

relevant period are thorough. To request an opinion years after treatment would add little to the

record. Further, a consultative examination several years after the expiration of the insured status

would shed little light on Thomas’ condition prior to December 31, 2012. 

There is no error in the ALJ’s reliance upon the record before him. The objective medical

evidence in this case was adequate and the ALJ’s decision was well-informed. Under these

circumstances, we find no error in the ALJ’s reliance upon the record before him, and on his

decision not to seek further evidence on other issues. 

In summary, we find the ultimate decision of Colvin was supported by substantial evidence. 

We are mindful that the Court’s task is not to review the record and arrive at an independent

decision, nor is it to reverse if we find some evidence to support a different conclusion. The test is

whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. See, e.g., Byes v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 913,

915 (8th Cir. 2012). This test is satisfied in this case.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the final decision of Colvin is affirmed and Thomas’

complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of August, 2016.

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Case 3:15-cv-00403-PSH Document 17 Filed 08/31/16 Page 5 of 5