Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_14-cv-00745/USCOURTS-ared-4_14-cv-00745-0/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

WESTERN DIVISION

JAMES ROBERT MARTIN PLAINTIFF

v. No. 4:14–CV–745-SWW–BD

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner,

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

Recommended Disposition

Instructions

The following recommended disposition was prepared for Judge Susan Webber

Wright. 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 Wright 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).

2Griffini 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 4:14-cv-00745-SWW Document 12 Filed 01/15/16 Page 1 of 8
Reasoning for Recommended Disposition

James Robert Martin seeks judicial review of the denial of his application for

social security disability benefits.3

 In the past, Mr. Martin worked for a shoe factory.4

He says he stopped working because his job required standing and standing caused his

ankles to swell.5

 He claims he has been disabled since he quit his job in February, 2011. 

He based disability on swelling in his feet, a knee problem, and a sleeping disorder.

6

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

Commissioner’s ALJ identified back pain, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

(COPD), obesity, and bilateral leg pain, and pitting edema as severe impairments.7 The

ALJ determined that Mr. Martin could do some sedentary work.8

 Because a vocational

expert identified available sedentary work, the ALJ determined that Mr. Martin was not

disabled and denied the application.9

3

SSA record at pp. 119 & 126 (applying on Mar. 22, 2012 and alleging disability

beginning Feb. 1, 2011).

4

Id. at pp. 149, 169 & 221.

5

Id. at pp. 28, 159, 163, 186 & 202.

6

Id. at p. 148.

7

Id. at p. 12.

8

Id. at p. 13.

9

Id. at pp. 16-17.

2

Case 4:14-cv-00745-SWW Document 12 Filed 01/15/16 Page 2 of 8
After the Commissioner’s Appeals Council denied a request for review,10

 the

decision became a final decision for judicial review.11

 Mr. Martin filed this case to

challenge the decision.12 In reviewing the decision, the court must determine whether

substantial evidence supports the decision and whether the ALJ made a legal error.

13

This recommendation explains why the court should affirm the decision.

Mr. Martin’s allegations. Mr. Martin challenges several aspects of the decision,

arguing: (1) the ALJ should have further developed the record by ordering a

consultative exam; (2) the ALJ improperly determined that his impairments were

controlled with treatment; (3) the ALJ erred in relying on vocational evidence because

the vocational expert’s testimony conflicts with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles

10

Id. at p. 1.

11

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

13

See 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.”).

3

Case 4:14-cv-00745-SWW Document 12 Filed 01/15/16 Page 3 of 8
(DOT), and (4) the ALJ erred in his consideration of the transferability of skills. For

these reasons, he maintains, substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s decision.14

Applicable legal principles. For substantial evidence to support the decision, a

reasonable mind must accept the evidence as adequate to show Mr. Martin could do

some sedentary work. 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.”15

 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.”16

The ALJ placed the following limitations on sedentary work:

(1) occasional climbing, balancing, stooping, and bending,

(2) no crouching, kneeling, or crawling, and

(3) no excessive chemicals, noise, humidity, fumes, dust,

temperature extremes, gases, vibrations, and other pulmonary

irritants.17

14Docket entry # 10.

15

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

16

SSR 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.

17

SSA record at p. 13.

4

Case 4:14-cv-00745-SWW Document 12 Filed 01/15/16 Page 4 of 8
For substantial evidence to exist, a reasonable mind must accept the evidence as

adequate to show Mr. Martin could work within these limits. A reasonable mind will

accept the evidence as adequate for the following reasons: 

1. No basis exists for excluding work involving excessive pulmonary

irritants. A claimant must prove disability with medical evidence; his

allegations are not enough to prove he is disabled.18

 The ALJ identified

five severe impairments, but the record establishes one impairment:

obesity. There is no evidence of COPD. The other conditions identified as

severe impairments are symptoms, not impairments. “A ‘symptom’ is not

a ‘medically determinable physical or mental impairment’ and no

symptom by itself can establish the existence of such an impairment.” 19

The absence of evidence of COPD is significant because the ALJ excluded

work involving excessive pulmonary irritants. In the absence of evidence

18

42 U.S.C. § 423 (d)(5)(A) (“An individual’s statement as to pain or other

symptoms shall not alone be conclusive evidence of disability...; there must be medical

signs and findings, established by medically acceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic

techniques, which show the existence of a medical impairment...which could

reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged and

which...would lead to a conclusion that the individual is under a disability”); 20 C.F.R.

§§ 404.1508 & 416.908 (“A physical or mental impairment must be established by

medical evidence consisting of signs, symptoms, and laboratory findings, not only by

your statement of symptoms.”); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 & 416.929 (“[S]tatements about

your pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that you are disabled; there must

be medical signs and laboratory findings which show that you have a medical

impairment(s) which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other

symptoms alleged and which, when considered with all of the other evidence (including

statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms which

may reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical signs and laboratory

findings), would lead to a conclusion that you are disabled.”).

19

SSR 96-4p, Pol’y Interpretation Ruling Titles II & XVI: Symptoms, Medically

Determinable Physical & Mental Impairments, & Exertional & Nonexertional

Limitations.

5

Case 4:14-cv-00745-SWW Document 12 Filed 01/15/16 Page 5 of 8
of COPD, there is no basis for excluding pulmonary irritants. Mr. Martin

did not allege symptoms flowing from pulmonary irritants. Instead, he

complained about shortness of breath that medical experts attributed to

obesity.20

Mr. Martin’s argument about a conflict between the vocational evidence

and the DOT fails because there is no evidence of COPD. Mr. Martin

contends that a conflict exists because the ALJ excluded excessive noise as

a pulmonary irritant, and because the DOT specifies “moderate noise” for

working as a telephone solicitor.

21

 Mr. Martin characterizes the difference

between excessive nosie and moderate noise as an apparent conflict

requiring a remand, but a remand is not indicated because no basis exists

for excluding noise.

2. Treatment history suggests no disabling symptoms. Because there is

little medical evidence, Mr. Martin’s claim depends on the credibility of

his subjective complaints. “Subjective complaints may be discounted if

there are inconsistencies in the evidence as a whole.”22

 Mr. Martin

complains about disabling symptoms, swelling in his calves and ankles, a

knee problem, and trouble breathing when sleeping, but he sought

treatment only twice during the time period for which benefits were

denied.23

 Two efforts in 31 months suggests no disabling symptoms. 

Mr. Martin knows about treatment at a free clinic, but he does not go.24 A

20

SSA record at pp. 243-50 & 253.

21The DOT doesn’t specify noise levels, but according to a companion publication

— the Selected Characteristics of Occupations Defined in the Revised DOT — a

telephone solicitor works with “moderate” noise. Such exposure doesn’t necessarily

create a conflict because there are two higher noise levels: loud and very loud.

22Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984).

23The medical evidence consists of: (1) emergency room (ER) visit on for right

knee pain, negative diagnostic imaging, SSA record at pp. 234 & 238, and (2) ER visit for

swelling in both calves, treated with a diuretic and discharged, id. at pp. 255-60.

24

Id. at p. 35 (responding to “what have you done to treat your condition” and

stating “I just try to deal with it on a day ... to day basis because I don’t have no

6

Case 4:14-cv-00745-SWW Document 12 Filed 01/15/16 Page 6 of 8
reasonable mind would expect a person with disabling symptoms to seek

medical treatment.

Mr. Martin’s treatment history suggests no reason for a consultative exam. 

“The ALJ is required to order medical examinations ... only if the medical

records ... do not give sufficient medical evidence to determine whether

the claimant is disabled.”25 Mr. Martin’s medical records gave sufficient

evidence to determine whether he was disabled. Medical providers

instructed Mr. Martin on how to control his primary symptom26

 —

swelling in the legs and ankles — but Mr. Martin did not pursue medical

recommendations.

Medical recommendations included avoiding prolonged standing. A

reasonable mind will accept the evidence as adequate to support the

decision because the ALJ did not require standing.

3. Transferability of skills was not an issue. “Transferability means

applying work skills which a person has demonstrated in vocationally

relevant past jobs to meet the requirements of other skilled or semiskilled

jobs.”27 The ALJ considers transferability when applying the MedicalVocational Guidelines.28

 Mr. Martin claims that the ALJ failed to properly

follow agency guidance about transferability. But, the ALJ didn’t rely on

Medicaid.”

25Barrett v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 1019, 1023 (8th Cir. 1994).

26

SSA record at p. 261 (followup with UAMS medical clinic, reduce salt intake,

take medications as prescribed, avoid long periods of standing).

27

SSR 82-41, Titles II & XVI: Work Skills & Their Transferability as Intended by

the Expanded Vocational Factors Reg. ¶ 2b. 

28

SSR 83-10, Titles II & XVI: Determining Capability to Do Other Work -- The

Med.-Vocational Rules of Appendix 2.

7

Case 4:14-cv-00745-SWW Document 12 Filed 01/15/16 Page 7 of 8
the Guidelines; instead, the ALJ consulted a vocational expert to

determine whether work existed that Mr. Martin could do.29

According to the vocational expert, and the DOT, Mr. Martin’s past work

as a materials handler, and the jobs identified as representative work, are

classified at skill level 3 (jobs requiring over one month and up to and

including three months to become proficient).30 A reasonable mind will

accept the evidence as adequate to support the decision because a

vocational expert identified available sedentary work: telephone solicitor

and food checker. The availability of these jobs shows that work exists

that Mr. Martin could do, regardless of whether such work exists where

he lives, whether a job vacancy exists, or whether he would be hired if he

applied for work.31

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. The ALJ made no harmful

legal error. For these reasons, the undersigned magistrate judge recommends

DENYING Mr. Martin’s request for relief (docket entry # 2) and AFFIRMING the

Commissioner’s decision.

Dated this 15th day of January, 2016.

____________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

29

See SSR 00-4p, Titles II & XVI: Use of Vocational Expert & Vocational Specialist

Evidence, & Other Reliable Occupational Info. in Disability Decisions.

30

SSA record at pp. 50-51 (materials handler, telephone solicitor, food checker, all

classified as SVP 3).

31

42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(B).

8

Case 4:14-cv-00745-SWW Document 12 Filed 01/15/16 Page 8 of 8