Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_14-cv-00432/USCOURTS-ared-5_14-cv-00432-0/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

Sharon Denise Sullivan Plaintiff

v. No. 5:14‐CV–432‐DPM‐JTK

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner,

Social Security Administration Defendant

Recommended Disposition

Instructions

The following recommended disposition was prepared for U.S. District Judge

D.P. Marshall.  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 Marshall

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).

2

Griffini 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 5:14-cv-00432-DPM Document 15 Filed 10/08/15 Page 1 of 9
Reasoning for Recommended Disposition

Sharon Denise Sullivan seeks judicial review of the denial of her application for

supplemental security income (SSI).3  Sullivan last worked as a substitute teacher.4  She

claims she has been disabled since she stopped working in May 2012,5 but a claimant

isn’t eligible for SSI before applying.6

  Consequently, this case considers whether

Sullivan was disabled beginning July 11, 2012.  Sullivan based disability on HIV

infection, left knee surgery, arthritis, left eye blindness, torn ligament in the left knee,

kidney problems, liver problems, Hepatitis B, and an overworked heart.7

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

identified severe impairments — status post left knee replacement, bilateral knee

osteoarthritis, left eye blindness, kidney disease, and obesity8 — and determined

Sullivan can do some sedentary work.9

  Because a vocational expert identified available

3

SSA record at p. 140 (applying on July 11, 2012 and alleging disability beginning

March 1, 2001).

4

Id. at pp. 38, 155 & 168.

5

Id. at p. 36 (amending initial onset date of March 1, 2001 to May 15, 2012, day she

stopped working).

6

20 C.F.R. § 416.335; Cruse v. Bowen, 867 F.2d 1183, 1185 (8th Cir. 1989).

7

SSA record at p. 154.

8

Id. at p. 15.

9

Id. at p. 16.

2

Case 5:14-cv-00432-DPM Document 15 Filed 10/08/15 Page 2 of 9
sedentary work,10 the ALJ concluded that Sullivan isn’t disabled and denied the

application.11  After the Appeals Council denied review,12 the ALJ’s decision became the

Commissioner’s final decision for the purpose of judicial review.13  Sullivan filed this

case to challenge the decision.14

Sullivan’s allegations.  Sullivan contends the ALJ failed to properly reconcile

medical opinion evidence.  She says the ALJ provided an insufficient explanation for

rejecting her primary care physician’s (PCP) medical statement.  She maintains the

opinion is well‐supported and consistent with other evidence.  She complains because

agency medical experts didn’t review later evidence documenting knee surgery.  She

contends the ALJ committed reversible legal error.15

Applicable legal principles.  When reviewing a decision denying an application

for SSI, the court must determine whether substantial evidence supports the decision

10Id. at pp. 65‐66.

11Id. at p. 24.

12Id. at p. 1.

13See Anderson v. Sullivan, 959 F.2d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1992) (stating that “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).

14Docket entry # 1.

15Docket entry # 13.

3

Case 5:14-cv-00432-DPM Document 15 Filed 10/08/15 Page 3 of 9
and whether the ALJ made a legal error.16  For substantial evidence to exist, a

reasonable mind must accept the evidence as adequate to support the determination

that Sullivan can do some sedentary work and that work exists that Sullivan can do.17

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.”18  The ALJ placed

the following limitations on sedentary work:

(1) no climbing ladders, ropes or scaffolds;

(2) occasional climbing ramps/stairs, stooping, kneeling, crouching,

crawling, and balancing;

(3) no jobs requiring good peripheral vision or good depth perception; and

(4) jobs permitting a worker to sit/stand at will.19

For the following reasons, a reasonable mind will accept the evidence as adequate to

show Sullivan can work within these limitations:

16See 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.”).

17Britton v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 328, 330 (8th Cir. 1990) (substantial evidence exists if

a reasonable mind will accept evidence as adequate to support conclusion).

1820 C.F.R. § 416.967(a).

19SSA record at p. 16.

4

Case 5:14-cv-00432-DPM Document 15 Filed 10/08/15 Page 4 of 9
1.  Sullivan has no very serious functional limitation preventing

sedentary work.  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.”20

Two impairments reduce Sullivan’s ability to work: left eye blindness and

osteoarthritis in the knees.  Sullivan did not show left eye blindness

prevents her from working.  She lost the sight in her left eye in 2009.21  She

worked as a substitute teacher using the vision in her right eye until May

2012.  The ALJ excluded work requiring good peripheral vision and good

depth perception to accommodate the loss of vision.

Osteoarthritis in the knees limits the ability to stand, walk, climb, stoop,

kneel, crawl, crouch, and balance.  Both knees were replaced after Sullivan

applied for SSI — the left knee during the time period for which benefits

were denied,22 and the right knee after the time period for which benefits

were denied.23  Sullivan’s knees do not prevent sedentary work because

that type of work doesn’t require much walking or standing, and little or

no climbing, stooping, kneeling, crawling, crouching, and balancing .

Sedentary work involves  mostly sitting.  Treatment records reflect no

problems with sitting.  The ALJ required a sit/stand option because

Sullivan says she must alternate between sitting and standing.

Sullivan’s other medical problems do not prevent sedentary work.  She’s

had those impairments for several years.  Her blood pressure is

20SSR 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.

21SSA record at p. 329.

22Id. at p. 313.

23Id. at p. 381.

5

Case 5:14-cv-00432-DPM Document 15 Filed 10/08/15 Page 5 of 9
controlled.24  Kidney function is stable.25  Hepatitis B is asymptomatic.26

HIV infection is contained with anti‐HIV drugs.27  Treatment records

reflect no very serious functional limitation preventing sedentary work.

Agency medical experts didn’t review later evidence documenting the left

knee replacement, but the ALJ responded appropriately by reducing the

estimate of Sullivan’s ability to work from light work28 to sedentary work.

A reasonable mind will accept the evidence as adequate to support the

determination that Sullivan can do some sedentary work.

2.  The ALJ provided a sufficient explanation for rejecting the PCP’s

statement.  The ALJ must consider all credible evidence, to include

medical opinion evidence, when considering whether a claimant is

disabled.29  The Commissioner’s rules instruct the ALJ to give a treating

physician’s medical opinion controlling weight if it “is well‐ supported

and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case

record.”30

The record includes three medical opinions: two from agency medical

experts and one from a treating physician.  The agency medical experts

opined that Sullivan can do light work.31  Sullivan’s PCP reported

24Id. at pp. 282, 299, 303 & 527.

25Id. at pp. 282, 299, 303 & 527.

26Id. at pp. 347 & 360.

27Id. at p. 351 (most recent lab results).

28Id. at pp. 75 & 85.  The reduction was based on HIV infection.

2920 C.F.R. § 416.927.

30SSR 96‐2p, Pol’y Interpretation Ruling Titles II & XVI, Giving Controlling Weight to

Treating Source Med. Opinions.

31SSA record at pp. 75 & 85.

6

Case 5:14-cv-00432-DPM Document 15 Filed 10/08/15 Page 6 of 9
disabling symptoms.32

Sullivan suggests the ALJ erred by failing to specify the weight given to

medical opinions, but her real complaint is the failure to give the PCP

statement controlling weight.  The ALJ determined the statement “is not

fully supported by the weight of substantial evidence and as such is not

entitled to controlling weight on the issue of disability.”33  The ALJ

observed that the PCP’s course of treatment “has not been consistent with

what one would expect if the claimant were truly disabled, as the doctor

reported.”34  The question for review isn’t whether the ALJ should have

specified the amount of weight, but whether the statement is well‐

supported and consistent with other substantial evidence so as to justify

controlling weight.

The statement isn’t well‐supported.  Treatment records document painful

knees, but nothing implicating disabling limitations.  The left knee was

replaced 28 weeks before the date of the unfavorable decision.35  Two

weeks later, Sullivan walked without a limp.36  Diagnostic imaging

showed the new knee was in excellent position.37  The right knee was

replaced 8 weeks after the unfavorable decision.  Four months later,

Sullivan walked with a limp.  Treatment records reflect no basis for

reported limitations with sitting, bending, twisting, or using the hands.

The PCP statement is inconsistent with other substantial evidence.  For

example, according to the PCP, Sullivan can sit for 20 minutes at a time,

32Id. at p. 347.  The PCP provided a later statement, id. at p. 360, but that

statement falls outside the time period for which benefits were denied.

33Id. at p. 22.

34Id. at p. 21.

35Id. at p. 313.

36Id. at p. 310.

37Id.

7

Case 5:14-cv-00432-DPM Document 15 Filed 10/08/15 Page 7 of 9
for no more than two hours per day,38 but Sullivan said she can sit for

about 30 minutes before she needs to get up and move around.  The PCP

reported disabling limitations with the hands,39 but Sullivan did not

mention her hands in describing her symptoms.40  Treatment records —

from various medical sources — document no complaints about sitting or

using the hands.  The PCP statement deserved no controlling weight

because it is not supported and it is inconsistent with other substantial

evidence.

3.  Work exists that Sullivan can do.  After determining Sullivan can no

longer work as a substitute teacher, the ALJ questioned a vocational

expert about available sedentary work.41  The vocational expert identified

jewelry preparer and charge account clerk as representative jobs.42  Both

jobs permit a worker to alternate between sitting and standing.43  The

availability of the representative jobs shows work exists that Sullivan can

do, regardless of whether such work exists where she lives, whether a job

vacancy exists, or whether she would be hired if she applied for work.44

Because such work exists, Sullivan isn’t disabled under social security

law.

Conclusion and Recommended Disposition

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision because a reasonable mind will

38Id. at pp. 347‐48.

39Id. at p. 350.

40Id. at p. 175 (knees, eyes, kidneys, Hepatitis B), pp. 187‐88 (knees, eyes), p. 191

(knees, eyes, chest pain, arms), p. 199 (knees, eyes, ankles), p. 202 (knees) & p. 206

(knees, legs, eyes).

41Id. at pp. 64‐66.

42Id. at p. 65.

43Id. at p. 66.

4442 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(B).

8

Case 5:14-cv-00432-DPM Document 15 Filed 10/08/15 Page 8 of 9
accept the evidence as adequate to support the decision.  Sullivan’s impairments do not

prevent her from doing sedentary work.  The ALJ made no reversible legal error.  For

these reasons, the undersigned magistrate judge recommends DENYING Sullivan’s

request for relief (docket entry # 2) and AFFIRMING the Commissioner’s decision.

Dated this 8th day of October, 2015.

____________________________________

United States Magistrate Judge

9

Case 5:14-cv-00432-DPM Document 15 Filed 10/08/15 Page 9 of 9