Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_04-cv-02213/USCOURTS-arwd-2_04-cv-02213-1/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

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

DEBRA J. GOFF PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 04-2213

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner,

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

O R D E R

Now on this 21st day of March, 2006, comes on for

consideration the Magistrate Judge's Report And Recommendation

(document #13), and plaintiff’s Objections thereto (document #14),

and the Court, having carefully reviewed these documents, finds

and orders as follows:

1. On June 21, 1998, an ALJ found plaintiff to be disabled,

and entitled to benefits, with a period of disability starting

September 1, 1996, based on complaints of hypertension, borderline

intellectual functioning, and depression.

On May 11, 2004, following an administrative hearing on

October 28, 2003, an ALJ found that plaintiff had experienced

medical improvement in her disabling conditions, and that she was

able to perform her past relevant work as an inspector at a

furniture factory. The ALJ determined that plaintiff had ceased

being disabled for Social Security purposes. That decision

ultimately became the final decision of the Commissioner, and

comes to this Court following review, report, and recommendation

of the Magistrate Judge.

Case 2:04-cv-02213-JLH Document 15 Filed 03/21/06 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

2. Based on her review of the administrative record, the

Magistrate Judge reported that there was substantial evidence to

support the ALJ’s conclusion that plaintiff was no longer

disabled, and that upon judicial review of a decision of the

Commissioner, the court’s role is to determine whether the

Commissioner’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, not

to substitute its own opinion for that of the Commissioner.

3. Plaintiff filed letter objections stating that her knee

still “gives away” with her, and that she still gets dizzy. These

conditions, along with complaints of occasional chest pain, were

the reasons given by plaintiff at the administrative hearing for

why she believes she is unable to work. Her depression and

hypertension are controlled with diet and medication, and her

intellectual functioning does not appear to prevent her from

working.

4. The record as reported by the Magistrate Judge contains

the following medical evidence related to plaintiff’s knees and

her dizziness:

08/25/00 Dr. Hamid noted a postural drop in plaintiff’s blood

sugar and a feeling of dizziness upon standing

08/30/00 Dr. Hamid noted plaintiff was “still orthostatic” and

complaining of dizziness upon standing

01/22/01 Plaintiff complained of dizziness off and on, usually

when her blood pressure increased

08/02/01 An episode of dizziness and chest pain sent plaintiff to

the hospital

Case 2:04-cv-02213-JLH Document 15 Filed 03/21/06 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
To the extent that plaintiff’s dizziness or her knee problems may have worsened 1

since the administrative hearing, those conditions may form the basis of a new period

of disability not herein under consideration.

-3-

07/09/02 Plaintiff complained of falling when her knee gave way

05/30/03 Plaintiff denied having dizziness. Her blood pressure

was under good control.

These complaints, few in number and widely separated by time,

do not undermine the findings of the ALJ or the recommendations of

the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff’s dizziness appears to be related

to her blood pressure, which is controlled with diet and

medication. There is only one report of a knee problem, and it

occurred over a year before the administrative hearing.

The Court also notes that during a mental status examination

on February 17, 2003, plaintiff stated that she “could probably go

to work if I wanted to,” and that she did not think there was

anything to keep her from working. Plaintiff testified at the

administrative hearing that she thought she could work part-time

if she could find a job.1

For the foregoing reasons, the Court agrees with the

Magistrate Judge that the Commissioner’s findings are supported by

substantial evidence, and should be affirmed, and that the Report

And Recommendation is sound in all respects, and should be adopted

in toto, and plaintiff’s objections thereto overruled. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report

And Recommendation is adopted in toto.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Objections to the

Case 2:04-cv-02213-JLH Document 15 Filed 03/21/06 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-4-

Report And Recommendation are overruled.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for the reasons stated in the

Magistrate Judge's Report And Recommendation, plaintiff’s claim is

hereby dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02213-JLH Document 15 Filed 03/21/06 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>