Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-4_06-cv-04002/USCOURTS-arwd-4_06-cv-04002-0/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

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

RALIEGH PROMISE PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-4002

LINDA S. McMAHON, Commissioner

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Raliegh Promise brings this action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a decision of the

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (Commissioner).

Both parties have filed appeal briefs and the matter is now ripe

for review. The Court, being well and sufficiently advised, finds

and orders as follows with respect thereto: 

BACKGROUND

1. In December of 2002 and January of 2003, plaintiff, age

47 at the time, filed applications for disability insurance

benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI) benefits

under the provisions of Titles II and XVI of the Social Security

Act (the Act). Plaintiff alleged that he became disabled on

September 14, 2002, due to hand, leg, back and knee injuries he

sustained in a motorcycle accident. (Tr. 3, 51-53.)

2. An administrative hearing was conducted on December 10,

2003 (Tr. 145-62). On April 5, 2004, the ALJ issued a written

opinion (Tr. 15-26) finding:

Case 4:06-cv-04002-BAB Document 9 Filed 03/05/07 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

* that plaintiff was entitled to a closed period of

disability benefits from September 14, 2002, to September 15,

2003 (Tr. 23-25);

* that as of September 15, 2003, plaintiff’s medical

impairments had improved and, while he could not perform his past

relevant work as a roofer, he could perform the “demands of

sedentary work reduced by a limited ability to push/pull with the

lower extremities and an inability to perform more than occasional

climbing, kneeling, crouching, squatting, or stooping” (Tr. 25);

* that plaintiff had a “limited education” (emphasis

added) and no transferrable skills (Tr. 25); and

* that, “[b]ased on an exertional capacity for sedentary

work, and the [plaintiff’s] age, education, and work experience,

a finding of ‘not disabled’ [was] directed by Medical-Vocational

Rule 201.19 and 201.20 for the period subsequent to September 15,

2003.” (Tr. 25.)

3. Plaintiff appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Appeals

Council. Plaintiff’s request for review of the hearing decision

by the Appeals Council was denied on December 16, 2005. (Tr. 4-

7.) When the Appeals Council declined review, the ALJ’s decision

became the final action of the Commissioner. Plaintiff now seeks

judicial review of that decision.

Case 4:06-cv-04002-BAB Document 9 Filed 03/05/07 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

APPLICABLE LAW

4. Our review of the Commissioner's determination is

limited in scope by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court's role is to

determine whether the Commissioner's decision is supported by

substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Siemers v.

Shalala, 47 F.3d 299, 301 (8th Cir. 1995). Substantial evidence

means more than a mere scintilla of evidence, it means such

relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to

support a conclusion. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401

(1971); Oberst v. Shalala, 2 F.3d 249, 250 (8th Cir. 1993). In

deciding whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by

substantial evidence, the Court must consider the evidence that

supports the Commissioner's decision, along with evidence that

detracts from it. Siemers, 47 F.3d at 301; Barrett v. Shalala, 38

F.3d 1019, 1022 (8th Cir. 1994).

5. It is well-established that a claimant for Social

Security disability benefits has the burden of proving his

disability by establishing a physical or mental disability that

has lasted at least one year and that prevents him from engaging

in any substantial gainful activity. See Pearsall v. Massanari,

274 F.3d 1211, 1217 (8th Cir. 2001); see also 42 U.S.C. § §

423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act defines “physical or mental

impairment” as “an impairment that results from anatomical,

physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are

Case 4:06-cv-04002-BAB Document 9 Filed 03/05/07 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
-4-

demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory

diagnostic techniques.” 42 U.S.C. § § 423(d)(3), 1382(3)(c).

6. The Commissioner's regulations require her to apply a

five-step sequential evaluation process to each claim for

disability benefits:

(1) whether the claimant has engaged in substantial gainful

activity since filing his claim; 

(2) whether the claimant has a severe physical and/or mental

impairment or combination of impairments; 

(3) whether the impairment(s) meet or equal an impairment in

the listings; 

(4) whether the impairment(s) prevent the claimant from

doing past relevant work; and

(5) whether the claimant is able to perform other work in

the national economy given his age, education, and experience.

See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. 

DISCUSSION

7. The ALJ relied on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines

found in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, in concluding

that plaintiff was not disabled subsequent to September 15, 2003.

An ALJ may use the guidelines to find that a claimant is not

disabled if the claimant does not have nonexertional impairments,

or the nonexertional impairment does not diminish the claimant’s

residual functional capacity to perform the full range of

Case 4:06-cv-04002-BAB Document 9 Filed 03/05/07 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
-5-

activities listed in the guidelines. See Holz v. Apfel, 191 F.3d

945, 947 (8 Cir. 1999). If nonexertional impairments th

significantly affect the claimant’s residual functional capacity,

however, the guidelines are not controlling and may not be used to

direct a conclusion of not disabled. Id. “‘Adequate training and

intellectual capacity are presumed in the [g]uidelines, and

evidence that militates against those presumptions makes the

[g]uidelines inapplicable.’” Id., quoting Simons v. Sullivan, 915

F.2d 1223, 1225 (8 Cir. 1990). th

8. In his disability report and supplemental interview

outline, plaintiff stated that he could not read or write and that

his sister completed the forms for him. (Tr. 67, 81.) Plaintiff

indicated on the forms that he had completed the eleventh grade,

but at the hearing before the ALJ, plaintiff clarified that he

actually only completed the seventh grade. When the ALJ asked how

he “manage[d] to get through six[] grades of school and not learn

how to read,” plaintiff responded, “I don’t know. Just pushed me

through, I guess.” (Tr. 150.) Plaintiff explained that he

“tried” but just “never learned” how to read. (Tr. 151.)

Plaintiff testified that he has never had a job that required him

to read or write and that he does not know how to use a phone book

or a television guide. (Tr. 150.)

9. The ALJ found that plaintiff had a “limited education.”

Under the regulations, a limited education is generally considered

Case 4:06-cv-04002-BAB Document 9 Filed 03/05/07 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
-6-

to be a “7 grade through the 11 grade level of formal th th

education.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1564(b)(3). The Medical-Vocational

Guidelines relied upon by the ALJ, specifically Rules 201.19 and

201.20, state that an individual of plaintiff’s age, with a

limited education, and capable of performing sedentary work is not

disabled. However, if an individual in this category is

illiterate, as compared to having a limited education, he is

considered disabled. See Rule 201.17.

10. The ALJ’s finding that plaintiff has a limited education

is not supported by substantial evidence. While plaintiff

completed the 7 grade, he testified that he was “[j]ust pushed th

... through” and never learned how to read or write. The ALJ did

not address whether or not plaintiff is actually literate. 

An administrative hearing is not an adversarial proceeding

and an ALJ has a duty to fully and fairly develop the record, even

though a claimant is represented by counsel. See Wilcutts v.

Apfel, 143 F.3d 1134, 1137-38 (8 Cir. 1998). “[T]he goals of the th

Secretary and the advocates should be the same: that deserving

claimants who apply for benefits receive justice.” Battles v.

Shalala, 36 F.3d 43, 44 (8 Cir. 1994). th

11. The Court believes remand is necessary to allow the ALJ

to develop the record on the issue of plaintiff’s literacy. The

following tests are designed to measure an individual’s ability

to, among other things, read and write: 

Case 4:06-cv-04002-BAB Document 9 Filed 03/05/07 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
-7-

* the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT);

* the Wide Range Achievement Test 3 (WRAT3); and

* the Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery-Revised:

Tests of Achievement (WJ-R ACH). See Wilcutts, 143 F.3d at 1138.

(remanding case for testing to determine claimant’s literacy).

If the ALJ finds that plaintiff is illiterate, he should then

consider whether the guidelines, to the extent they are

instructive, direct a finding of disability. See 20 C.F.R. Pt.

404, Subpt. P. App. 2 § 201.00(h)(1) (a finding of disability is

warranted for individuals age 45-49 who are restricted to

sedentary work, are unskilled or have no transferable skills, can

no longer perform past relevant work, and are unable to read or

write); Holz, 191 F.3d at 947-48 (remanding case for further

proceedings to determine effect of claimant’s borderline

intellectual functioning; instructing ALJ, on remand, to consider

whether guidelines directed a finding of disability for claimant,

who was 47 to 49 years of age during relevant time period, could

not perform his past relevant work, had no transferrable skills,

and was limited to sedentary work).

If the ALJ finds that plaintiff is not illiterate but has

limitations in his ability to read or write, the ALJ should

consult a vocational expert to determine if work exists in

significant numbers in the national economy given these 

Case 4:06-cv-04002-BAB Document 9 Filed 03/05/07 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
-8-

limitations, plaintiff’s age, non-transferrable skills, and

restriction to sedentary work.

CONCLUSION

12. Based on the foregoing, this case is hereby remanded to

the Commissioner for further consideration pursuant to sentence

four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of March 2007.

/S/JIMM LARRY HENDREN 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 4:06-cv-04002-BAB Document 9 Filed 03/05/07 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>