Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_16-cv-00027/USCOURTS-ared-4_16-cv-00027-0/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

LITTLE ROCK DIVISION

TAMMIE COLEEN WILSON PLAINTIFF

V. NO. 4:16CV00027 JLH/PSH

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner, 

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

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

States District Judge J. Leon Holmes. 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.

I. Introduction:

 Plaintiff, Tammie Coleen Wilson, applied for disability insurance benefits on November 1,

2012. (Tr. at 48). After conducting a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied her

application. (Tr. at 58). The Appeals Council denied Ms. Wilson’s request for review. (Tr. at 1). 

The ALJ’s decision now stands as the final decision of the Commissioner, and Ms. Wilson has

requested judicial review.

For the reasons stated below, the Court should affirm the decision of the Commissioner.

II. The Commissioner’s Decision: 

The ALJ found that Ms. Wilson had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the

alleged onset date of April 15, 2012. (Tr. at 50). The ALJ found at Step Two that Ms. Wilson had

Case 4:16-cv-00027-JLH Document 13 Filed 10/26/16 Page 1 of 7
the following severe impairments: osteoarthritis, disorders of the back, high blood pressure (“HBP”),

and obesity. (Tr. at 51). At Step Three, the ALJ determined that Ms. Wilson’s impairment did not

meet or equal a listed impairment. Id. Before proceeding to Step Four, the ALJ determined that Ms.

Wilson had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform light work except for the following

limitation: 1) requires a sit/stand option at 1-hour intervals on a consistent basis throughout the

course of the workday. (Tr. at 52). Next, the ALJ found that Ms. Wilson is capable of performing

past relevant work as a medical transcriptionist. (Tr. at 57). Consequently, the ALJ found that Ms.

Wilson was not disabled. (Tr. at 58). 

III. Discussion:

A. Standard of Review

The 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 whether it is based on legal error. 

Miller v. Colvin, 784 F.3d 472, 477 (8th Cir. 2015); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). While “substantial

evidence” is that which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,

“substantial evidence on the record as a whole” requires a court to engage in a more scrutinizing

analysis:

“[O]ur review is more than an examination of the record for the existence of

substantial evidence in support of the Commissioner’s decision; we also take into

account whatever in the record fairly detracts from that decision.” Reversal is not

warranted, however, “merely because substantial evidence would have supported an

opposite decision.” 

Reed v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 917, 920 (8th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). 

2

Case 4:16-cv-00027-JLH Document 13 Filed 10/26/16 Page 2 of 7
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 which

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

which supports the decision of the ALJ. Miller, 784 F.3d at 477. The Court has reviewed the entire

record, including the briefs, the ALJ's decision, and the transcript of the hearing.

B. Ms. Wilson’s Arguments on Appeal

Ms. Wilson argues that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s decision to deny

benefits. She contends that the ALJ erred by: 1) failing to properly develop the record; 2) failing

to consider evidence which detracted from his findings; 3) improperly assessing Ms. Wilson’s

credibility; 4) failing to give proper weight to the treating physician’s opinion; and 5) assigning the

improper RFC to Ms. Wilson. Reviewing the entire record, the Court finds that the ALJ’s

determinations were supported by substantial evidence. 

Ms. Wilson’s arguments can be distilled to the weight given to the physicians, credibility and

RFC. The evidence from both Ms. Wilson’s treating doctors and the state consultants provides an

adequate basis to support the ALJ’s decision. 

Ms. Wilson saw her treating physician, Dr. Roxanne Marshall, from January 2011 through

March 2013. She diagnosed hypertension, lethargy with weight gain, hyperlipedemia, degenerative

joint disease of the lumbar spine, radiculopathy down both legs, chest pain, migraine headaches,

hyperthyroidism, anxiety, insomnia, dependent edema of the lower extremities, irritable bowel

syndrome, morbid obesity, osteoarthritis in both knees and ankles, and a history of Grave’s disease. 

(Tr. 809-914). As Ms. Wilson does not make an argument that all of those ailments should be

considered severe impairments, the Court will limit its discussion to osteoarthritis, HBP, disorders

3

Case 4:16-cv-00027-JLH Document 13 Filed 10/26/16 Page 3 of 7
of the back, and obesity (the impairments the ALJ found to be severe). 

At various check-ups Ms. Wilson’s HBP was not well controlled, and Dr. Marshall

consistently prescribed HBP medication. Many times, Dr. Marshall recommended a low fat diet for

weight loss, and counseled that her obesity was negatively impacting her HBP. (TR. at 810, 811,

813, 821). Over the relevant time period, Ms. Wilson did not lose weight. The failure to follow a

prescribed treatment may be used to discredit subjective allegations. Stone v. Harris, 657 F.2d 210

(8th Cir. 1981); Brown v. Heckler, 767 F.2d 451 (8th Cir. 1985)). Nevertheless, in spite of Ms.

Wilson’s failure to follow doctor’s orders, Dr. Marshall found that the HBP was under control on

May 9, 2012 and March 1, 2013. (Tr. at 810, 815). Impairments that are controllable or amendable

to treatment do not support a finding of total disability. Mittlestedt v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 847, 852 (8th

Cir. 2000). A pre-hysterectomy physical by Dr. Marshall also revealed she was healthy enough for

surgery, and that her HBP was controlled by medication. (Tr. at 815). The Medical Source

Statement completed by Dr. Marshall on January 31, 2013 limits Ms. Wilson to sitting for 4 hours

a day and sitting or standing for 2 hours a day. (Tr. at 734-735). He indicates she would need to

shift positions and would likely miss 1 day of work per month. The ALJ found this RFC was not

entirely supported by the medical evidence, but he incorporated a sit/stand option into his RFC. 

The ALJ considered the records from Dr. Jeremy Saul, M.D., which likewise indicated that

Ms. Wilson’s HBP was well-controlled and “benign.” (Tr. at 1086, 1101). He did not address her

other severe impairments. There is little medical evidence regarding the lumbar back disorder, and

the state examiner found no imaging studies for the lumbar spine. (Tr. at 150). Moreover, Ms.

Wilson does not argue that the ALJ failed to discuss, address, or consider her back pain in making

his findings. As Ms. Wilson did not raise an argument about the back disorder, the Court need not

4

Case 4:16-cv-00027-JLH Document 13 Filed 10/26/16 Page 4 of 7
address that severe impairment. 

Ms. Wilson did have a total left knee replacement on September 27, 2013, but Dr. Saul did

not find any complications or limitations resulting from the surgery. Moreover, Ms. Wilson’s RFC

allowed for a sit/stand option, which is consistent with a prior knee surgery. 

The ALJ considered the evidence of the state-agency physician, Dr. Ronald Crow, D.O. 

(148-150). Dr. Crow noted unremarkable x-rays of the knees, conservative treatment, and ability

to perform a variety of ADL’s. Id. He determined Ms. Wilson could perform light work with no

additional restrictions. (Tr. at 150). This opinion evidence is consistent with the medical evidence

as a whole; however, the ALJ assigned a more limited RFC by including a sit/stand option. 

The ALJ considered Ms. Wilson’s obesity, and found that it would have more than a minimal

effect on Ms. Wilson’s ability to perform work activities. He noted that it would limit Ms. Wilson’s

ability to sit/stand, which is reflected in the assigned RFC. The RFC was on the whole appropriate

based on the evidence in the record, and the ALJ did not err in assigning the RFC and concluding

Ms. Wilson could perform her past relevant work as a medical transcriptionist. 

As for Ms. Wilson’s credibility, the ALJ properly considered the Polaski factors in making

his finding. The ALJ is required to consider the familiar Polaski factors in evaluating the credibility

of the claimant’s subjective complaints. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. Those factors are: (a) the claimant’s

work history; (b) the claimant’s daily activities; (c) the duration, frequency and intensity of the pain;

(d) precipitating and aggravating factors; (e) dosage, effectiveness and side effects of medication;

(f) functional restrictions. Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984). Another factor

to be considered is the absence of objective medical evidence to support the complaints, although

the ALJ may not discount a claimant's subjective complaints solely because they are unsupported

5

Case 4:16-cv-00027-JLH Document 13 Filed 10/26/16 Page 5 of 7
by objective medical evidence. Mouser v. Astrue, 545 F.3d 634, 638 (8th Cir. 2008). 

Ms. Wilson indicated she could perform a variety of daily activities, including attending to

her personal hygiene, caring for her mother and son, doing housework, running errands, shopping,

driving, attending school functions, and socializing. (Tr. at 56). This detracts from her credibility.

Johnson v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1145, 1148-49 (8th Cir. 2001)(acts which are inconsistent with a

claimant's assertion of disability reflect negatively upon that claimant's credibility). 

Ms. Wilson’s doctors repeatedly told her to quit smoking to improve her health conditions. 

She indicated she was unwilling to quit and she continued to smoke during the relevant period. The

ALJ properly considered both her failure to quit smoking and to lose weight when he evaluated

credibility. See Kisling v. Chater, 105 F.3d 1255, 1257 (8th Cir. 1997)(the ALJ correctly discounted

claimant’s credibility when claimant failed to stop smoking despite physician’s orders); see Moore

v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 520, 524 (8th Cir. 2009)(encouragement to exercise constituted evidence in

support of ALJ’s findings) 

The ALJ also considered that Ms. Wilson’s HBP was amendable to treatment and that

overall, her treatment was conservative. She did not have extended hospital stays or surgery for her

degenerative disc disease or osteoarthritis, and her physicians managed her medical conditions with

medication. The ALJ’s evaluation of the Polaski factors in assessing credibility was proper. 

IV. Conclusion:

There is substantial evidence to support the Commissioner’s decision that Ms. Wilson is not

disabled. The weight given to doctors and assessments of RFC and credibility was proper. The

decision, therefore, should be affirmed. The case should be dismissed, with prejudice.

6

Case 4:16-cv-00027-JLH Document 13 Filed 10/26/16 Page 6 of 7
IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of October, 2016.

___________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7

Case 4:16-cv-00027-JLH Document 13 Filed 10/26/16 Page 7 of 7