Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_19-cv-00122/USCOURTS-ared-3_19-cv-00122-0/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)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

MATTHEW NELSON SHEPARD, * 

 * 

 Plaintiff, * 

v. * No. 3:19-cv-00122 LPR-JJV 

 * 

ANDREW SAUL, * 

Commissioner of the * 

Social Security Administration, * 

 * 

 Defendant. * 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

 

INSTRUCTIONS

 This recommended disposition has been submitted to United States District Judge Lee P. 

Rudofsky. The parties may file specific objections to these findings and recommendations and 

must provide the factual or legal basis for each objection. The objections must be filed with the 

Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings and recommendations. A copy 

must be served on the opposing party. The district judge, even in the absence of objections, may 

reject these proposed findings and recommendations in whole or in part. 

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION 

 Plaintiff, Matthew Shepard, has appealed the final decision of the Commissioner of the 

Social Security Administration to deny his claim for supplemental security income. Both parties 

have submitted appeal briefs and the case is now ready for a decision. 

 A 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 free of legal error. Slusser v. 

Astrue, 557 F.3d 923, 925 (8th Cir. 2009); Long v. Chater, 108 F.3d 185, 187 (8th Cir. 1997); see 

Case 3:19-cv-00122-LPR Document 14 Filed 01/10/20 Page 1 of 6
2 

also 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). 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. Chater, 82 F.3d 254, 257 (8th Cir. 1996). In assessing the 

substantiality of the evidence, courts must consider evidence that detracts from the 

Commissioner’s decision as well as evidence that supports it; a court may not, however, reverse 

the Commissioner’s decision merely because substantial evidence would have supported an 

opposite decision. Sultan v. Barnhart, 368 F.3d 857, 863 (8th Cir. 2004); Woolf v. Shalala, 3 F.3d 

1210, 1213 (8th Cir. 1993). 

 The history of the administrative proceedings and the statement of facts relevant to this 

decision are contained in the respective briefs and are not in serious dispute. Therefore, they will 

not be repeated in this opinion except as necessary. After careful consideration of the record as a 

whole, I find the decision of the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence. 

 Plaintiff is young. He was thirty-five at the time of the administrative hearing. (Tr. 254.) 

He is a high school graduate, (Id.), and has past relevant work as a hand packager. (Tr. 56.) 

The Administrative Law Judge2

 (ALJ) found Mr. Shepard has “severe” impairments in the 

form of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), migraine 

headaches, anxiety, and depression, (Tr. 49), but did not have an impairment or combination of 

 

2

The ALJ followed the required sequential analysis to determine: (1) whether the claimant was 

engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if not, whether the claimant had a severe impairment; 

(3) if so, whether the impairment (or combination of impairments) met or equaled a listed 

impairment; and (4) if not, whether the impairment (or combination of impairments) prevented the 

claimant from performing past relevant work; and (5) if so, whether the impairment (or 

combination of impairments) prevented the claimant from performing any other jobs available in 

significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)-(g) and 404.1520(a)-(g). 

Case 3:19-cv-00122-LPR Document 14 Filed 01/10/20 Page 2 of 6
3 

impairments meeting or equaling an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 

(Tr. 50-52.) 

 The ALJ determined Mr. Shepard had the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform a 

reduced range of sedentary work. (Tr. 52.) Given this RFC, the ALJ determined Mr. Shepard is 

no longer able to perform his past relevant work. (Tr. 56.) Therefore, the ALJ employed the 

services of a vocational expert to determine whether jobs existed that Mr. Shepard could perform 

despite his impairments. (Tr. 265-268.) Based in part on the vocational expert testimony, the 

ALJ determined that Plaintiff was capable of performing the jobs of document preparer and 

addressor. (Tr. 57.) Accordingly, the ALJ determined Mr. Shepard was not disabled. (Id.) 

 The Appeals Council received additional evidence but denied Mr. Shepard’s request for a 

review of the ALJ’s decision. (Tr. 1-4.) Therefore, the ALJ’s decision is the final decision of 

the Commissioner. (Id.) Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint initiating this review. (Doc. No. 

2.) 

In support of his Complaint, Mr. Shepard argues that the ALJ erred by not finding his 

irritable bowel syndrome, throat problems, and bipolar disorder are “severe” impairments. (Doc. 

No. 11 at 5-7.) Plaintiff also says that the ALJ erred at step 5 of his analysis but fails to develop 

any argument supporting this claim. (Id.) 

 A “severe” impairment is one that significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental 

ability to do basic work activities. Gwathney v. Chater, 104 F.3d 1043, 1045 (8th Cir. 1997); 

Browning v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 817, 821 (8th Cir. 1992); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c) (2007). It has 

“more than a minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to work.” Hudson v. Bowen, 870 F.2d at 

1396; accord, Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 707 (8th Cir. 2007); Page v. Astrue, 484 F.3d 1040, 

1043 (8th Cir. 2007). 

Case 3:19-cv-00122-LPR Document 14 Filed 01/10/20 Page 3 of 6
4 

(a) Non-severe impairment(s). An impairment or combination of 

impairments is not severe if it does not significantly limit your physical or mental 

ability to do basic work activities. 

(b) Basic work activities. When we talk about basic work activities, we 

mean the abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs. Examples of these 

include-- 

(1) Physical functions such as walking, standing, sitting, lifting, pushing, 

pulling, reaching, carrying or handling; 

(2) Capacities for seeing, hearing, and speaking; 

(3) Understanding, carrying out, and remembering simple instructions; 

(4) Use of judgment; 

(5) Responding appropriately to supervision, co-workers and usual work 

situations; and 

(6) Dealing with changes in a routine work setting. 

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1521 and 416.921 (2007). 

 The ALJ found Plaintiff’s HIV, GERD, migraine headaches, anxiety, and depression were 

all “severe” impairments. (Tr. 49-50.) The ALJ explained that Mr. Shepard, “. . . complained of 

back pain and reaching difficulties; however, the record fails to support diagnoses related to these 

complaints. As such, they are found to be non-medically determinable impairments.” The ALJ 

did not explain why he did not find Plaintiff’s irritable bowel syndrome, throat problems, and bipolar disorder to be non-medically determinable impairments. However, I do not find reversible 

error here. 

When looking at Plaintiff’s application for benefits, Mr. Shepard identified HIV, 

depression, migraines, digestive problems, neck and back problems, cyst on left anterior cruciate 

ligament, human papillomavirus, and post-traumatic stress disorder. (Tr. 397.) Plaintiff 

identified depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, but not bipolar disorder. The ALJ found 

“severe” anxiety and depression, and this finding is supported by the evidence of record. (Tr. 

953, 957-959, 968, 970, 973, 978, 981.) I recognize some of the recent medical records identify, 

“Depressed bipolar I disorder,” (Tr. 989, 992, 995, 999, 1010, 1016, 1026, 1033, 1037), but the 

Case 3:19-cv-00122-LPR Document 14 Filed 01/10/20 Page 4 of 6
5 

ALJ’s finding of “severe” anxiety and depression fairly addresses Plaintiff’s mental impairments. 

More importantly, the ALJ properly accounted for Plaintiff’s mental impairments in his RFC 

assessment. The ALJ concluded that Mr. Shepard required work with limited interpersonal 

contact, infrequent interaction with the public, few variables, little judgment, and simple direct and 

concrete supervision. (Tr. 52.) So regardless of any particular diagnosis, the ALJ properly 

accounted for the impact of Plaintiff’s mental impairments on his ability to perform work related 

activities. 

I further find Plaintiff’s throat problems were also properly addressed by the ALJ’s finding 

of “severe” GERD. The medical evidence simply fails to support throat problems beyond what 

the ALJ considered in his opinion. And Mr. Shepard’s irritable bowel syndrome – according to 

the medical records – was situational and generally amenable to treatment. While the ALJ did not 

specifically address Plaintiff’s irritable bowel syndrome at step 2, in making his subjective 

symptom evaluation, the ALJ addressed his diarrhea and noted a normal colonoscopy, and 

improvement with medication. (Tr. 54, 559-560, 880.) I recognize Mr. Shepard was 

hospitalized after a month-long bout of diarrhea and vomiting. (Tr. 529.) Yet, lab tests revealed 

nothing to identify the cause. (Tr. 557, 604.) Plaintiff was discharged with conservative 

treatment, including medication and diet. (Tr. 559.) Additionally, as the Commissioner notes in 

his brief, one of Plaintiff’s bouts of diarrhea was also likely as a result of taking antibiotics and 

was also improved through a change of diet. (Doc. No. 13 at 5-6.) 

I am sympathetic to Mr. Shepard’s claims. I am certain he experiences some degree of 

pain and limitation. But the overall medical evidence provides substantial support for the ALJ’s 

determination that he could perform work at the sedentary exertional level. 

Case 3:19-cv-00122-LPR Document 14 Filed 01/10/20 Page 5 of 6
6 

 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 on the record as a whole 

which supports the decision of the ALJ. E.g., Mapes v. Chater, 82 F.3d 259, 262 (8th Cir. 1996); 

Pratt v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 830, 833 (8th Cir. 1992). 

Counsel for both sides have done exemplary work on behalf of their respective clients. I 

have reviewed the entire record, including the briefs, the ALJ’s decision, the transcript of the 

hearing, and the medical and other evidence. There is ample evidence on the record as a whole 

that “a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support [the] conclusion” of the ALJ in this 

case. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); see also Reutter ex rel. Reutter v. 

Barnhart, 372 F.3d 946, 950 (8th Cir. 2004). The Commissioner’s decision is not based on legal 

error. 

 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the final decision of the Commissioner be 

affirmed, and Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. 

 DATED this 10th day of January 2020. 

 ____________________________________ 

 JOE J. VOLPE 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:19-cv-00122-LPR Document 14 Filed 01/10/20 Page 6 of 6