Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_15-cv-00430/USCOURTS-ared-4_15-cv-00430-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405 Review of HHS Decision

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

 WESTERN DIVISION

JULIUS L. COOPERWOOD PLAINTIFF

v. No. 4:15–CV–430-JM-BD

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner,

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

Recommended Disposition

Instructions

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

James M. Moody, Jr. 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 Moody

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 4:15-cv-00430-JM Document 11 Filed 04/11/16 Page 1 of 8
Reasoning for Recommended Disposition

Julius L. Cooperwood seeks judicial review of the denial of his fourth application

for supplemental security income (SSI).3

 Mr. Cooperwood last worked as a restaurant

dishwasher; he lost his job when the restaurant closed.4 Mr. Cooperwood based

disability on high blood pressure, panic attacks, medication side effects, right knee

problems, and poor right-eye vision.5 

The Commissioner’s decision. Because SSI benefits are not payable prior to the

date of application, the Commissioner’s ALJ considered whether Mr. Cooperwood was

disabled beginning May 16, 2012.6 The ALJ identified learning disorder, anxiety

disorder with pain and reactive features, status post right knee meniscectomy,

hypertension, and obesity as severe impairments.7 The ALJ determined Mr.

Cooperwood could do some light work.8 Because a vocational expert identified

3

SSA record at p. 127 (applying on May 16, 2012 and alleging disability beginning

Jan. 1, 1999); id. at p. 134 (reflecting prior applications alleging disability beginning May

30, 1991, Jan. 1, 1999 & Nov. 9, 2007) & id. at p. 141 (reporting denial of prior

applications on Dec. 9, 2009 & Jan. 7, 2003).

4

Id. at pp. 37 & 310.

5

Id. at p. 145.

6

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

7

SSA record at p. 14.

8

Id. at p. 18.

2

Case 4:15-cv-00430-JM Document 11 Filed 04/11/16 Page 2 of 8
available light work, the ALJ determined Mr. Cooperwood was not disabled and denied

the application.9

After the Commissioner’s Appeals Council denied a request for review,10 the

decision became a final decision for judicial review.11 Mr. Cooperwood 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. Cooperwood allegations. Mr. Cooperwood challenges the determination

that he could do light work. He claims the ALJ should have ordered a physical

consultative exam to evaluate his right knee and the effects of obesity. He contends the

9

Id. at pp. 23-24.

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 4:15-cv-00430-JM Document 11 Filed 04/11/16 Page 3 of 8
ALJ failed to do a function-by-function analysis of his ability to work and that a

function-by-function analysis would show that his right knee and obesity prevent light

work. He complains that the ALJ did not account for limitations in social functioning;

the ALJ failed to identify inconsistences weighing against his credibility; the

hypothetical question omitted supported symptoms; and the ALJ relied on an

incomplete exhibit list. 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 that Mr. Cooperwood

could do some light work and that work existed that he could do. “Light work involves

lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects

weighing up to 10 pounds.”15 The ALJ required light work involving simple, routine,

repetitive tasks. A reasonable mind would accept the evidence as adequate for the

following reasons: 

1. Medical evidence establishes no disabling symptoms. A claimant

must prove disability with medical evidence; allegations are not enough to

prove disability.16 Treatment records suggest right-knee surgery triggered

14Docket entry # 9.

15

20 C.F.R. § 416.967(b).

16

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

4

Case 4:15-cv-00430-JM Document 11 Filed 04/11/16 Page 4 of 8
the challenged application, because one month before applying, Mr.

Cooperwood underwent arthroscopic surgery on the right knee.17 The

injury necessitating the surgery likely limited the ability to work before

surgery, but the surgeon released Mr. Cooperwood to work one week

after surgery.18 Mr. Cooperwood reported a decrease in pain and the knee

could bear weight.19

 The surgeon instructed Mr. Cooperwood to return if

symptoms persisted, but he did not return. This history indicates surgery

relieved pre-surgery symptoms. Agency medical experts projected that

Mr. Cooperwood would recover to do medium work.20

 

After that time, Mr. Cooperwood complained about right knee pain from

time to time.21 Medical providers prescribed medication for pain relief. 

Prescribed treatment indicates symptoms could be controlled. Symptoms

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.

§ 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. § 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.”).

17

SSA record at p. 250.

18

Id. at p. 288.

19

Id.

20

Id. at pp. 304 & 353.

21

Id. at p. 356 (Oct. 23, 2012) & p. 392 (Dec. 4, 2013).

5

Case 4:15-cv-00430-JM Document 11 Filed 04/11/16 Page 5 of 8
that can be controlled by treatment are not disabling.22

2. The ALJ fairly and fully developed the record. The ALJ must fairly

and fully develop the record as to the matters at issue.23 Mr. Cooperwood

claims the ALJ should have ordered a physical consultative exam, but an

ALJ must “order medical examinations and tests only if the medical

records presented to him do not give sufficient medical evidence to

determine whether the claimant is disabled.”24

Mr. Cooperwood saw medical providers fairly regularly for management

of hypertension. The ALJ had associated treatment records, the knee

surgeon’s records, and emergency room records. Treatment records

document Mr. Cooperwood’s weight. The records document no

limitations flowing from the right knee or obesity. No need existed for a

consultative physical exam. Treatment records provided sufficient

medical evidence to determine whether Mr. Cooperwood was disabled. 

Mr. Cooperwood says the ALJ acted upon an incomplete exhibit list, but

the record shows that the ALJ considered all of the evidence.

3. Substantial evidence supports the credibility assessment. Because

medical evidence does not support the claim, the success of Mr.

Cooperwood’s application depends on the credibility of his subjective

complaints. “Subjective complaints may be discounted if there are

inconsistencies in the evidence as a whole.”25 Mr. Cooperwood contends

that the ALJ failed to identify inconsistencies undermining his credibility,

but the ALJ contrasted allegations with activities of daily living, treatment

records, and mental diagnostic evaluations.26 Mr. Cooperwood’s real

complaint is the result — the ALJ’s conclusion that treatment notes fail to

support subjective allegations and that objective medical evidence

22Estes v. Barnhart, 275 F.3d 722, 725 (8th Cir. 2002).

23

Landess v. Weinberger, 490 F.2d 1187, 1189 (8th Cir. 1974).

24Barrett v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 1019, 1023 (8th Cir. 1994).

25Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984).

26

SSA record at pp. 20-21.

6

Case 4:15-cv-00430-JM Document 11 Filed 04/11/16 Page 6 of 8
weakens his credibility. A reasonable mind would accept the evidence as

adequate to support the credibility evaluation.

4. Vocational evidence supports the decision. After determining Mr.

Cooperwood’s ability to work, the ALJ consulted a vocational expert. 

When asked about available light work involving simple, routine,

repetitive tasks, the vocational expert identified representative jobs:

housekeeper hotel and fast food worker.

27

 The availability of these jobs

shows that work exists that Mr. Cooperwood 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.28 The ALJ also asked

about sedentary work. The vocational expert identified available

sedentary work.29

 A person who can do light work can do sedentary

work.

To the extent Mr. Cooperwood contends the ALJ failed to do a functionby-function analysis, the light-work determination embodies an implicit

finding that Mr. Cooperwood had the functional capacity to do light

work.30 Mr. Cooperwood contends the ALJ should have included

moderate difficulties in social functioning, but that argument flows from

the psychiatric review techniques finding at step three of the disability

determination process. The step-three determination does not control at

step four.

Simple, routine, repetitive work involves incidental interpersonal contact. 

No evidence suggests that Mr. Cooperwood lacked social skills needed for

incidental interpersonal contact. He complains about the weight assigned

27

Id. at p. 52.

28

42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(B).

29

SSA record at pp. 52-53 (identifying document preparer and table worker as

simple, routine, repetitive sedentary work with numerous postural limitations).

30Depover v. Barnhart, 349 F.3d 563, 567 (8th Cir. 2003) (record reflected implicit

finding about claimant’s ability to sit, stand, and walk).

7

Case 4:15-cv-00430-JM Document 11 Filed 04/11/16 Page 7 of 8
to his first mental diagnostic evaluation,31

 but the exam preceded the time

period for which benefits were denied.

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

Commissioner’s decision.

Dated this 11th day of April, 2016.

____________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

31

SSA record at p. 232 (Oct. 28, 2009).

8

Case 4:15-cv-00430-JM Document 11 Filed 04/11/16 Page 8 of 8