Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_15-cv-00475/USCOURTS-ared-4_15-cv-00475-0/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)

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

TINA ROGERS PLAINTIFF

V. CASE NO. 4:15-CV-00475-BRW-JTK

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Court 

Judge Billy Roy Wilson. 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.

DISPOSITION

Plaintiff, Tina Rogers, appeals the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social 

Security Administration (Commissioner) denying her claim for disability insurance benefits (DIB) 

and supplemental security income (SSI) based on disability.1

 Both parties have submitted 

 

1 “Disability” is the “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically 

determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be 

expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). A “physical or mental 

impairment” is “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).

Case 4:15-cv-00475-BRW Document 15 Filed 11/18/16 Page 1 of 11
2

appellate briefs, and the case is ready for a decision. The only issue before the Court is whether 

the Commissioner’s decision that Plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security 

Act is supported by substantial evidence. For the reasons outlined below, it is recommended that 

the final decision of the Commissioner be affirmed. 

Procedural History

Plaintiff filed her applications for DIB and SSI on January 20, 2012. (Tr. 186-200) She 

alleged a disability onset date of November 23, 2011. (Tr. 208) Disability Determination Services 

(DDS) denied the Plaintiff’s claims at the initial and reconsideration levels. (Tr. 117-123, 127-28) 

Plaintiff timely requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Following the 

hearing, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision, finding that Plaintiff was not disabled. The 

Appeals Council denied the request for review on May 27, 2015, making the ALJ’s decision the 

final decision of the Commissioner (Tr. 1-4) Plaintiff timely filed her action in federal court.

Administrative Proceedings

An administrative hearing was held on November 7, 2013, and was attended by Plaintiff, 

her attorney, and a vocational expert (VE). Plaintiff was 51 years old at the time of the 

administrative hearing and had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since her alleged onset 

date. (Tr. 16) She has a high school education and past relevant work as a bartender and 

transportation chef. (Tr. 57) The ALJ considered Plaintiff’s impairments by way of the required 

five-step sequential evaluation process2 and found that Plaintiff had the severe3 impairments of 

 2 “The five-part test is whether the claimant is (1) currently employed and (2) severely impaired; (3) whether 

the impairment [meets] or approximates a listed impairment; (4) whether the claimant can perform past relevant work; 

and if not, (5) whether the claimant can perform any other kind of work. Through step four of this analysis, the 

claimant has the burden of showing that she is disabled. Only after the analysis reaches step five does the burden shift 

to the Commissioner to show that there are other jobs in the economy that a claimant can perform.” Steed v. Astrue, 

524 F.3d 872, 875 n.3 (8th Cir. 2008)(internal citations omitted).

3

 An impairment is “severe” if it significantly limits an individual’s ability to perform basic work activities. 

20 C.F.R. § 416.920 and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. An impairment is “nonsevere” when medical or other evidence 

Case 4:15-cv-00475-BRW Document 15 Filed 11/18/16 Page 2 of 11
3

osteoarthritis, scoliosis, chronic obstruction pulmonary disease (“COPD”), hypertension, obesity, 

and migraine headaches. (Tr. 16-18) The ALJ found Plaintiff did not have an impairment or 

combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of the listing. (Tr. 18-19).

In addition, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity4 (RFC) 

to perform light work5 except with the following limitations: (1) she can only occasionally climb 

stairs, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl; (2) she should never climb ladders; (3) she must 

avoid exposure to extreme heat, wetness, humidity, and concentrations of dust, fumes, gases, odor, 

smoke, poor ventilation, and airborne irritants; (4) she cannot work without the option to either sit 

or stand every sixty minutes; and (5) she can frequently handle, finger, and feel objects. (Tr. 19-

23) In making her determination, the ALJ noted that, while the Plaintiff’s impairments could 

reasonably be expected to cause the symptoms alleged, the statements concerning the intensity, 

persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms were not entirely credible. (Tr. 23) The ALJ 

further found that while Plaintiff was unable to perform any of her past relevant work, there were 

other jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy that she could perform (i.e. 

representative occupations such as cashier II). (Tr. 24) Consequently, the ALJ concluded Plaintiff 

was not disabled.

 

establishes only a slight abnormality that would have no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability to work. 

20 C.F.R. § 416.921 and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521.

4 The RFC is “the most [a claimant] can do despite” his or her “physical or mental limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 

416.945(a) and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

5

 Light work “involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects 

weighing up to 10 pounds.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(b) and 20 C.F.R. 404.1567(b).

Case 4:15-cv-00475-BRW Document 15 Filed 11/18/16 Page 3 of 11
4

Standard of Review

The Court’s limited 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. Long 

v. Chater, 108 F.3d 185, 187 (8th Cir. 1997); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence is 

“less than a preponderance, but enough that a reasonable mind might accept it as adequate to 

support a decision.” Cox v. Apfel, 160 F.3d 1203, 1206-07 (8th Cir. 1998) (citing Lawrence v. 

Chater, 107 F.3d 674, 676 (8th Cir. 1997)). The Commissioner’s decision cannot be reversed 

merely because substantial evidence would have supported an opposite decision. Sultan v. 

Barnhart, 368 F.3d 857, 863 (8th Cir. 2004). However, “[t]he substantial evidence test employed 

in reviewing administrative findings is more than a mere search of the record for evidence 

supporting the [Commissioner’s] findings.” Gavin v. Heckler, 811 F.2d 1195, 1199 (8th Cir. 

1987). “‘Substantial evidence on the record as a whole’ . . . requires a more scrutinizing analysis.” 

Id. (quoting Smith v. Heckler, 735 F.2d 312, 315 (8th Cir. 1984)). “In reviewing the administrative 

decision, ‘[t]he substantiality of evidence must take into account whatever in the record fairly 

detracts from its weight.’” Coleman v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 767, 770 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting 

Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 488 (1951)).

Discussion

On appeal, the Plaintiff argues that the Commissioner’s decision is not supported by 

substantial evidence on the record as a whole. (DE #13) Specifically, she alleges that: (1) the 

Commissioner’s decision should be reversed because the ALJ failed to find that Plaintiff’s back 

impairment and bipolar disorder were severe impairments; (2) the Commissioner’s decision should 

be reversed because the ALJ reached an RFC determination that is not based on substantial 

evidence; and (3) the Commissioner’s decision should be reversed because the Appeals Council 

Case 4:15-cv-00475-BRW Document 15 Filed 11/18/16 Page 4 of 11
5

failed to consider additional new and material evidence relating to the period on or before the date 

of the ALJ’s decision. (Tr. 11-17) The Commissioner argues that substantial evidence supports 

the ALJ’s decision that Plaintiff was not disabled from November 2011 through January 2014. 

(DE #14)

A. STEP TWO

At step two, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by not finding that her back impairment or 

bipolar disorder were severe impairments. (DE #13 at 12-14) The Commissioner responds that 

the ALJ specifically found that Plaintiff’s scoliosis was a severe impairment; thus, her allegations 

concerning her back impairment are without merit. The Commissioner argues further that 

substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff’s bipolar disorder did not rise 

to the level of a severe impairment. (DE # 14 at 4-8) 

The ALJ must determine, “based on the medical evidence, whether the claimant has an 

impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits the claimant’s ability to 

perform basic work activities.” Page v. Astrue, 484 F.3d 1040, 1043 (8th Cir. 2007) (citing 20 

C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii)). Proof of a disabling impairment “must be 

supported by at least some objective medical evidence.” Marolf v. Sullivan, 981 F.2d 976, 978 (8th 

Cir. 1992). The ALJ held that the Plaintiff’s scoliosis was a severe impairment; therefore, 

Plaintiff’s argument regarding her back impairment is moot and need not be addressed further. 

When addressing Plaintiff’s bipolar disorder, the ALJ determined the record showed her bipolar 

disorder only caused mild limitations in her activities of daily living and social functioning; mild 

restriction in her capacity for concentration, persistence, or pace; and no episodes of 

decompensation of extended duration. (Tr. 17) 

Case 4:15-cv-00475-BRW Document 15 Filed 11/18/16 Page 5 of 11
6

Here, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s step two determination. There is no 

objective medical evidence to support the Plaintiff’s claim that her bipolar disorder rises to the 

level of a severe impairment. To support her claim, the Plaintiff cites to some medical records 

which include the diagnosis of bipolar disorder and to records showing that physicians prescribed 

her Seroquel and Lithium. (DE # 13 at 13) Furthermore, Plaintiff cites to subjective claims that 

she made in her function report claiming that her bipolar disorder impacted her ability to get along 

with others, as well subjective claims during her testimony, and claims to William Kelley, M.D. 

in which she stated that she felt “down, depressed, and hopeless.” Id. It is a claimant’s burden to 

establish that an impairment is severe. Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 707 (8th Cir. 2007). If an 

impairment would have no more than a minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to work, then it is 

not considered to be a severe impairment. Id. 

In making her determination, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff’s “medically determinable mental 

impairment of bipolar disorder does not cause more than minimal limitation in the claimant’s 

ability to perform basic mental work activities and is therefore non-severe.” (Tr. 17) To reach 

this conclusion, the ALJ considered that the Plaintiff reported she is able to help care for her young 

grandson; manages her own finances; performs household chores such as cleaning the house, 

washing dishes, and doing laundry; notes that she does not have difficulty getting along with 

family, friends, or neighbors; and has no problems following written or spoken instructions and 

can pay attention as long as necessary. Id. Additionally, the ALJ took into account the statements 

in a Third-Party Adult Function Report completed by the Plaintiff’s daughter in which she stated 

that her mother gets along very well with authority figures; has never lost a job due to problems 

getting along with others; can pay attention for as long as necessary; follows written instructions 

very well; and has no problems with spoken instructions. Id. 

Case 4:15-cv-00475-BRW Document 15 Filed 11/18/16 Page 6 of 11
7

Additionally, there is also no record of treatment for Plaintiff’s bipolar disorder other than 

a prescription for Seroquel and Lithium nor are there any reports or claims that the medication 

Plaintiff was taking for her bipolar disorder was ineffective. See Williams v. Sullivan, 960 F.2d 

86, 89 (8th Cir. 1992) (holding that absence of treatment beyond prescription medication to control 

claimant’s mental disorder may be inconsistent with a finding of disability). Substantial evidence 

supports the Commissioner’s finding that Plaintiff’s bipolar disorder only causes minimal 

limitation in her ability to work and therefore is a non-severe impairment. 

B. THE ALJ’S RFC DETERMINATION

Plaintiff argues that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s RFC determination 

for two reasons: (1) the finding that Plaintiff can perform the standing and walking requirements 

for light work is inconsistent with the opinion of consultative examiner, Dr. Bruce Randolph, 

M.D., and (2) the ALJ failed to account for Plaintiff’s non-exertional limitations caused by her 

migraine headaches and bipolar disorder. (DE #13 at 14-16) The Commissioner argues that 

substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC determination. (DE #14 at 8-11) 

It is the claimant’s burden to prove his RFC. See Harris v. Barnhart, 356 F.3d 926, 930 

(8th Cir. 2004). An individual’s RFC is his ability to do physical and mental work activities on a 

sustained basis despite limitations from his impairments. See Social Security Ruling 96-8p. 

“Because a claimant’s RFC is a medical question, an ALJ’s assessment of it must be supported by 

some medical evidence of claimant’s ability to function in the workplace.” Moore v. Astrue, 572 

F.3d 520, 523 (8th Cir. 2009) (internal citations omitted). Although an RFC is a medical 

determination, the ALJ should rely not only on medical evidence but on all relevant, credible 

evidence. McKinney v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 860, 863 (8th Cir. 2000).

Case 4:15-cv-00475-BRW Document 15 Filed 11/18/16 Page 7 of 11
8

1. Physical Limitations

Plaintiff essentially argues the ALJ committed legal error by concluding she could perform 

light work, which she claims is inconsistent with the medical opinion of Dr. Bruce Randolph, M.D. 

(DE #13 at 15) Plaintiff bases her argument solely on Dr. Randolph’s notation that she had 

“moderate limitation in standing, walking, squatting, climbing and heavy lifting/pushing/pulling.” 

(Tr. 337)

The ALJ did not commit error by concluding that the Plaintiff can perform work at the light 

exertional level. Taking into account Dr. Randolph’s assessment, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s 

“residual functional capacity restricts her to light work performed under postural and 

environmental restrictions, where she has the option to sit or stand at will every sixty minutes.” 

(Tr. 21) Plaintiff has failed to show how the ALJ’s RFC finding is inconsistent with Dr. 

Randolph’s finding of moderate limitations in her walking and standing. Furthermore, the record 

as a whole is consistent with the ALJ’s RFC finding. The ALJ took into account that Dr. Randolph 

noted that Plaintiff has normal range of motion in her cervical and lumbar spine as well as normal 

gait and coordination. (Tr. 21) Additionally “medical records from November 7, 2012, report that 

the claimant has normal gait, and she is described on July 9, 2013, as having normal range of 

motion in all four extremities and is directed to exercise.” (Tr. 21) 

Lastly, the record reflects that no treating physician has ever put Plaintiff under any 

restrictions or acknowledged any limitations in walking or standing nor has the Plaintiff sought 

medical treatment for the alleged limiting physical condition. See Mouser v. Astrue, 545 F.3d 634, 

638 (8th Cir. 2008) (holding that claimant’s failure to seek medical treatment and lack of medical 

restrictions assessed by treating physician contradicts subjective complaints). The record shows 

that the ALJ considered the entire record when considering her physical limitations and assessed 

Case 4:15-cv-00475-BRW Document 15 Filed 11/18/16 Page 8 of 11
9

Plaintiff’s RFC based on all relevant, credible evidence. Substantial evidence supports ALJ’s RFC 

assessment regarding her physical limitations. 

2. Mental Limitations

Regarding her mental RFC, Plaintiff argues (1) that even though the ALJ found her 

migraines as a severe, she did not include non-exertional mental restrictions within her RFC 

determination, and (2) by failing to find Plaintiff’s bipolar depression a severe impairment, the 

ALJ failed to properly consider the impact of that impairment on Plaintiff’s RFC. (DE #13 at 15)

Plaintiff does not attempt to set forth what non-exertional mental limitations the ALJ 

should have set forth in her RFC to account for her migraine headaches; instead, she just states 

that “applicable non-exertional mental restrictions” were omitted. (DE #13 at 15) Plaintiff failed 

to meet her burden of proving that her migraine headaches cause any work-related limitations that

are inconsistent with the ALJ’s RFC. Furthermore, the record does not reflect that the Plaintiff’s 

history of headaches causes any work-related limitations or that her migraines cannot be controlled 

through the use of over-the-counter medication and prescription medication. See Stout v. Shalala, 

988 F.2d 853, 855 (8th Cir. 1993) (finding that if an impairment can be controlled by treatment or 

medication, it cannot be considered disabling).

Regarding Plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ failed to properly assess her mental workrelated limitations caused by her bipolar disorder, the Court already discussed and determined that 

when looking at the record as a whole, her bipolar disorder does not rise to the level of a severe 

impairment in that it only causes minimal limitation in her ability to work. Accordingly, the Court 

finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC determination.

Case 4:15-cv-00475-BRW Document 15 Filed 11/18/16 Page 9 of 11
10

C. POST-DECISION EVIDENCE

Lastly, Plaintiff argues that the Commissioner’s decision should be reversed because the 

Appeals Council failed “to consider additional new and material evidence relating to the period on 

or before the date of the ALJ’s decision.” (DE #13 at 16) The Commissioner argues that remand 

is not appropriate because the evidence Plaintiff presented to the Appeals Council did not relate to 

her condition prior to the ALJ’s January 2014 unfavorable decision. The Court agrees.

Under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.970(b) and 416.1470(b), if new material is submitted, the Appeals 

Council shall consider the additional evidence only where it relates to the period on or before the 

date of the ALJ’s decision. The Eight Circuit has held that “an implicit requirement is that the 

new evidence pertain to the time period for which benefits are sought, and that it not concern lateracquired disabilities or subsequent deteriorating of a previously non-disabling condition.” Jones 

v. Callahan, 122 F.3d 1148, 1154 (8th Cir. 1997). Furthermore, deterioration in a claimant’s 

condition after the date of the Commissioner’s final decision is not a basis for remand; however, 

it may be grounds for a new application of benefits. Id. 

Plaintiff submitted medical records6 dated July 30, 2014 from Baptist Health Medical 

Center to Appeals Council in November 2014. The MRI report was not presented to this Court;

however, the Appeals Council noted that it reviewed the medical records and because the new 

information is about a later time, it did not affect the decision about whether the Plaintiff was 

disabled beginning on or before January 22, 2014. (Tr. 2) Due to the fact that that the MRI was 

performed six (6) months after the Commissioner’s final decision and there is no objective 

evidence for this Court to review which would support Plaintiff’s allegation that a lumbar spine 

 6 The medical records in question were not included in the administrative record; however, the Plaintiff 

contends that it was a MRI of the lumbar spine performed on July 30, 2014 that “reveals chronic severe lumbar spine 

impairments.” (DE #13 at 17)

Case 4:15-cv-00475-BRW Document 15 Filed 11/18/16 Page 10 of 11
11

impairment was present prior to January 2014, this Court finds that remand is not appropriate. 

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s decision.

Conclusion

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 that 

contradicts his findings. The test is whether there is substantial evidence on the record as a whole 

which supports the decision of the ALJ. Pratt v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 830, 833 (8th Cir. 1992).

The Court has reviewed the entire record and concludes 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. Accordingly for the reasons set forth above, it is recommended that the final decision 

of the Commissioner be affirmed. 

IT SO ORDERED this 18th day of November, 2016.

 _________________________________

 UNITED STATES MAGISTATE JUDGE

Case 4:15-cv-00475-BRW Document 15 Filed 11/18/16 Page 11 of 11