Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_16-cv-00124/USCOURTS-ared-5_16-cv-00124-0/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 

PINE BLUFF DIVISION 

ALBERTA JOHNSON PLAINTIFF 

v. No. 5:16-CV-00124-BRW-JTK 

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, 

Acting Commissioner, 

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT 

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION 

INSTRUCTIONS 

The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to 

United States District Judge Billy Roy Wilson. You may file written objections to all or 

part of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically 

explain the factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and (2) be received by the Clerk 

of this Court within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. By not objecting, you 

may waive the right to appeal questions of fact. 

REASONING FOR RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION 

Alberta Johnson applied for social security disability benefits with an amended 

alleged onset date of October 21, 2011. (R. at 29). After a hearing, the administrative law 

judge (ALJ) denied her application. (R. at 19). The Appeals Council denied Johnson’s 

request for review. (R. at 1). The ALJ’s decision now stands as the Commissioner’s final 

decision, and Johnson has requested judicial review. 

For the reasons stated below, the magistrate judge recommends reversing and 

remanding the Commissioner’s decision. 

I. The Commissioner’s Decision 

Case 5:16-cv-00124-BRW Document 34 Filed 03/24/17 Page 1 of 4
The ALJ found that Johnson had the severe impairments of degenerative disk 

disease, arthritis, high blood pressure, and obesity. (R. at 14). The ALJ found that these 

impairments left Johnson with the residual functional capacity (RFC) to lift and carry 10 

pounds occasionally and less than 10 pounds frequently; stand and/or walk two hours in 

an eight-hour workday; sit for six hours in an eight-hour workday; and push and/or pull 

10 pounds occasionally and less than 10 pounds frequently. (R. at 15). The ALJ took 

testimony from a vocational expert and determined that Johnson could return to her 

past relevant work as a caseworker. (R. at 19). The ALJ therefore held that Johnson was 

not disabled. (R. at 19). 

II. Discussion 

The Court is to affirm the ALJ’s decision if it is not based on legal error and is 

supported by “substantial evidence in the record as a whole,” which is more than a 

scintilla but less than a preponderance. Long v. Chater, 108 F.3d 185, 187 (8th Cir. 

1997). The Court considers evidence supporting and evidence detracting from the 

Commissioner’s decision, but it will not reverse simply because substantial evidence 

could support a different outcome. Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010, 1012 (8th Cir. 2000). 

Johnson argues that the ALJ erred in several respects. She claims that the RFC is 

not supported by substantial evidence, that the ALJ failed to properly address conflicts 

between the opinions of state agency consultants and treating and examining 

physicians, that the ALJ failed to properly consider a treating physician opinion, that the 

ALJ failed to perform a proper credibility analysis, that her past work was not 

performed at the SGA level or too remote to be considered, and that the ALJ failed to 

properly consider the mental and physical demands of her past work. 

Case 5:16-cv-00124-BRW Document 34 Filed 03/24/17 Page 2 of 4
As the undersigned finds that the ALJ did not properly consider the opinion of a 

consultative examiner and that additional treating physician opinion evidence must be 

considered, Johnson’s other points need not be addressed. 

The ALJ noted that Daniel Irons, M.D., a consultative examiner, had opined in 

May 2013 that Johnson had moderate to severe limitations in walking, standing, sitting, 

lifting, and carrying items. (R. at 18). The ALJ noted that he gave significant weight to 

Dr. Irons’s opinion “[t]o the extent consistent with the residual functional capacity.” (R. 

at 18). However, the ALJ never addressed Dr. Irons’s note that Johnson experienced 

exercise-limiting dyspnea from carrying 5 pounds across the room. (R. at 258). This is 

the only medical evidence concerning Johnson’s carrying capacity, and it contradicts the 

RFC. Furthermore, Dr. Irons noted that Johnson cannot squat/arise from a squatting 

position and that she could heel/tow walk, “but reluctantly.” (R. at 260). These results 

strongly indicate greater limitations than those contained within the RFC, and the ALJ 

should have considered them. 

Furthermore, Johnson provided a statement from her treating physician, Dr. 

Anna Redman from October 15, 2013. (R. at 273). This evidence was first presented to 

the Appeals Council after the ALJ’s decision. (R. at 4). This Court does not have 

jurisdiction to review the decision of the Appeals Council, as such decisions are not final 

agency actions. Mackey v. Shalala, 47 F.3d 951, 953 (8th Cir. 1995). The Court’s duty is 

to determine whether substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the ALJ’s 

decision, including any new material evidence. Id. “If new and material evidence is 

submitted, the Appeals Council shall consider the additional evidence only where it 

relates to the period on or before the date of the administrative law judge hearing 

decision.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.970(b). Additional evidence must be more than merely 

Case 5:16-cv-00124-BRW Document 34 Filed 03/24/17 Page 3 of 4
cumulative of other evidence in the record to be considered “new,” and it is not 

“material” if it merely details conditions that are acquired or deteriorate after the ALJ’s 

decision. Bergman v. Apfel, 207 F.3d 1065, 1069–70 (8th Cir. 2000). 

Dr. Redman’s opinion satisfies these conditions. It is the opinion of a treating 

physician, which corroborates the opinion of Dr. Irons. Dr. Redman opines that 

Johnson is moderately to severely limited in sitting, standing, walking, or lifting and 

that she “can perform ADL”s at her own pace.” (R. at 273). When considered in light of 

the dearth of other treating and examining physician opinions, this one cannot be 

ignored. 

III. Recommended Disposition 

The ALJ improperly weighed the opinions of examining physician. Furthermore, 

the opinion of Johnson’s treating physician must be considered. The ALJ’s decision is 

therefore not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. For these 

reasons, the undersigned magistrate judge recommends REVERSING and 

REMANDING the decision of the Commissioner with instructions to develop the record 

and to reevaluate the treating and examining physician opinions with a full explanation 

of the weight given to the opinions. 

Dated this 24th day of March, 2017. 

 ________________________________ 

 JEROME T. KEARNEY 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 5:16-cv-00124-BRW Document 34 Filed 03/24/17 Page 4 of 4