Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00318/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00318-0/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 

PINE BLUFF DIVISION 

AMANDA K. VIRDEN PLAINTIFF 

v. 5:19-cv-00318-BSM-JJV 

ANDREW SAUL, 

Commissioner, 

Social Security Administration, DEFENDANT 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

 

INSTRUCTIONS

 This recommended disposition has been submitted to United States District Judge Brian S. 

Miller. 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, Amanda K. Virden, has appealed the final decision of the Commissioner of the 

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

have submitted briefs and the case is 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 

also 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a 

Case 5:19-cv-00318-BSM Document 17 Filed 03/20/20 Page 1 of 7
2 

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). After careful review of the pleadings and evidence in this case, 

I find the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and recommend the 

Complaint be DISMISSED. 

 Plaintiff is young – only thirty-four years old. (Tr. 34.) She has an eleventh-grade 

education (Tr. 36) and no past relevant work. (Tr. 22.) 

 The ALJ1

 found Ms. Virden had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since January 

19, 2017 - the application date. (Tr. 12.) She has a number of “severe” impairments, (id.), but 

the ALJ found Ms. Virden did not have an impairment or combination of impairments meeting or 

equaling an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.2 (Tr. 13-14.) 

 The ALJ determined Ms. Virden had the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform a 

reduced range of light work given her physical and mental impairments. (Tr. 14.) Since Ms. 

 

1

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). 

2

420 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925, and 416.926. 

Case 5:19-cv-00318-BSM Document 17 Filed 03/20/20 Page 2 of 7
3 

Virden has no past relevant work, the ALJ called upon on a vocational expert to help determine if 

Ms. Virden could perform substantial gainful activity given her RFC. (Tr. 55-57.) Based in part 

on the vocational expert’s testimony, the ALJ concluded Plaintiff could perform the jobs of price 

tag ticketer and hotel housekeeper. (Tr. 23.) Accordingly, the ALJ determined Ms. Virden 

was not disabled. (Id.) 

 The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for a review of the ALJ’s decision, making 

his decision the final decision of the Commissioner. (Tr. 1-3.) Plaintiff filed the instant 

Complaint initiating this appeal. (Doc. No. 2.) 

 In support of her Complaint, Plaintiff says the ALJ failed to fully develop the record. 

(Doc. No. 14 at 6-11.) She specifically says: 

The fact that each of these five [medically determinable impairments] met severity 

would ordinarily require there to be correlating physical work restrictions assessed 

at Step Four attributable to the effects of each of these enumerated impairments. 

The ALJ’s Step Four RFC included physical restrictions, specifically a full range 

light RFC determination. [Tr. 14] This RFC is flawed if it does not include work 

restrictions from the Step Two impairments as well as their combination with any 

nonsevere impairments. . . . Plaintiff alleges there are omissions will [sic] are a 

direct result of the ALJ’s failure to fully develop the record. 

(Id. at 7.) 

Plaintiff bears a heavy burden in showing the record has been inadequately developed. 

She must show both a failure to develop necessary evidence and unfairness or prejudice from that 

failure. Combs v. Astrue, 243 Fed.Appx. 200, 204 (8th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff has shown neither. 

The ALJ is permitted to issue a decision without obtaining additional evidence as long as the record 

is sufficient to make an informed decision. E.g., Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 749 (8th Cir. 

2001); Anderson v. Shalala, 51 F.3d 777, 779 (8th Cir. 1995). In this case, the record contains 

ample medical records to support the ALJ’s decision that Plaintiff is capable of performing light 

Case 5:19-cv-00318-BSM Document 17 Filed 03/20/20 Page 3 of 7
4 

work. Moreover, Plaintiff is reminded she had the burden of proving her disability. E.g., Sykes 

v. Bowen, 854 F.2d 284, 285 (8th Cir. 1988). Thus, she bore the responsibility of presenting the 

strongest case possible. Thomas v. Sullivan, 928 F.2d 255, 260 (8th Cir. 1991). As the 

Commissioner points out, there is no requirement that the ALJ’s RFC assessment be supported by 

a specific medical opinion. Hensley v. Colvin, 829 F.3d 926, 932 (8th Cir. 2016). Here, there 

are numerous records from numerous mental and physical examinations as well as the results from 

a host of diagnostic testing that support the ALJ’s conclusions. (Tr. 363-368, 388-390, 392-398, 

401-405, 568-573.) 

 Plaintiff also contends the ALJ erred in failing to find her obesity was a “severe” 

impairment. (Doc. No. 14 at 11-13.) Plaintiff correctly argues she mentioned her obesity as a 

medically determinable impairment in her prehearing memorandum. (Tr. 224.) But as the 

Commissioner counters, Ms. Virden did not allege obesity in her application for benefits, (Tr. 162), 

and did not mention obesity at the administrative hearing. (Tr. 38-55.) 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). 

(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; 

Case 5:19-cv-00318-BSM Document 17 Filed 03/20/20 Page 4 of 7
5 

(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 medical evidence simply fails to show her obesity substantially impacted her ability to 

work. And she has not provided any medical evidence to support an allegation her obesity 

amounted to a “severe” impairment. Accordingly, I find the ALJ could rightly determine 

Plaintiff’s obesity was not a severe impairment. 

 Plaintiff also says the ALJ “erroneously failed to properly evaluate [Ms. Virden’s] 

subjective complaints and apply the Polaski factors.” (Doc. No. 14 at 13.) I note this argument 

also ties into her arguments regarding the ALJ’s RFC assessment because this assessment is largely 

based on an ALJ’s assessment of a claimant’s subjective symptoms. (Id. at 17-20.) 

 The ALJ analyzed Ms. Virden’s symptoms in light of Social Security Ruling 16-3p. (Tr. 

14-22.) That ruling fairly tracks Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984), which states: 

The absence of an objective medical basis which supports the degree of severity of 

subjective complaints alleged is just one factor to be considered in evaluating the 

credibility of the testimony and complaints. The adjudicator must give full 

consideration to all of the evidence presented relating to subjective complaints, 

including the claimant’s prior work record, and observations by third parties and 

treating and examining physicians relating to such matters as: 

1. the claimant’s daily activities; 

2. the duration, frequency and intensity of the pain; 

3. precipitating and aggravating factors; 

4. dosage, effectiveness and side effects of medication; 

5. functional restrictions. 

Case 5:19-cv-00318-BSM Document 17 Filed 03/20/20 Page 5 of 7
6 

The adjudicator is not free to accept or reject the claimant’s subjective complaints 

solely on the basis of personal observations. Subjective complaints may be 

discounted if there are inconsistencies in the evidence as a whole. 

Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d at 1322 (emphasis in original). 

 While not making specific reference to Polaski in analyzing Ms. Virden’s symptoms, the 

ALJ thoroughly evaluated her subjective complaints. (Tr. 43.) As the ALJ concluded, “. . . the 

claimant’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms 

are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record for the 

reasons explained in this decision.” (Tr. 16.) The ALJ’s conclusion is supported by the objective 

medical evidence. Plaintiff had the burden of proving her disability. E.g., Sykes v. Bowen, 854 

F.2d 284, 285 (8th Cir. 1988). Thus, she bore the responsibility of presenting the strongest case 

possible. Thomas v. Sullivan, 928 F.2d 255, 260 (8th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff has not met that 

burden. The degree of Ms. Virden’s alleged limitations are simply not supported by the overall 

record. The ALJ accurately accounted for the limitations supported by the record and correctly 

concluded Plaintiff could perform a reduced range of light work activities. Accordingly, I find 

no basis to overturn the ALJ’s subjective symptom evaluation or RFC. 

 Additionally, given this limited review, second-guessing an ALJ’s assessment of subjective 

symptoms is an agonizing task. Ms. Virden clearly has limitations and some serious health issues. 

However, being mindful of the “substantial evidence” test in these cases, the record contains 

adequate objective medical evidence to support the ALJ’s determination here. 

 Plaintiff clearly suffers from some limitation given the combination of her impairments. 

And her counsel has done an admirable job advocating for her rights in this case. However, the 

objective medical records simply fail to support a claim of complete disability. 

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

Case 5:19-cv-00318-BSM Document 17 Filed 03/20/20 Page 6 of 7
7 

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. § 1382(a)(3)(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. § 1382c(a)(3)(D). 

 Plaintiff has advanced other arguments which I have considered and find to be without 

merit. It is not the task of a 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). 

 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. at 401; 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 that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. 

 DATED this 20th day of March 2020. 

 ____________________________________ 

 JOE J. VOLPE 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 5:19-cv-00318-BSM Document 17 Filed 03/20/20 Page 7 of 7