Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05127/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05127-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Betty Knox
Plaintiff
Social Security Administration Commissioner
Defendant

Document Text:

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

BETTY KNOX PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-5127

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Betty Knox brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review

of a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration (Commissioner) denying

her claims for period of disability and disability insurance benefits (DIB) pursuant to §§ 216(i)

and 223 of Title II of the Social Security Act (hereinafter "the Act"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i) and

423. In this judicial review, the court must determine whether there is substantial evidence in

the administrative record to support the Commissioner's decision. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Procedural and Factual Background

The medical records and factual background were provided in the court's prior

memorandum opinion, and thus will not recited here. See Knox v. Social Security Administration

Commissioner, Civil No. 03-5183. 

The plaintiff filed her application for DIB on April 23, 2002, alleging an onset date of

January 4, 2002. (Tr. 75.) The application was initially denied (Tr. 30-31) and that denial was

upheld upon reconsideration (Tr. 32-33). Plaintiff then made a request for a hearing by an

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). (Tr. 5.) 

On March 4, 2003, a hearing was held by the ALJ. The plaintiff was represented by

counsel at this hearing. (Tr. 15-29.) The ALJ issued an unfavorable ruling on March 18, 2003

Case 5:05-cv-05127-JRM Document 6 Filed 07/24/06 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

deciding that the plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Act. (Tr. 6-13.) The

plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing by the Appeals Council (Tr. 5), which denied that

request on July 9, 2003 (Tr. 2-4); thus, the ALJ's decision became the final action of the

Commissioner. The plaintiff then filed a complaint in this court, which reversed the decision of

the Commissioner and remanded the matter for further development of the record. On remand,

we noted that none of plaintiff's treating physician for her vision difficulties had completed a

Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) for the plaintiff. We held as follows:

We believe remand is necessary so that the record can be further developed

regarding plaintiff's physical RFC. On remand, the ALJ is directed to address

interrogatories to Dr. Singleton and Dr. Brown asking the physicians to review

plaintiff's medical records; to complete a RFC assessment regarding plaintiff's

capabilities during the relevant time periods in question; and to give the objective

basis for their opinions so that an informed decision can be made regarding

plaintiff's ability to perform basic work activities on a sustained basis. 

(Tr. 214.) 

On remand, Dr. Craig Brown signed, dated, and returned the Medical Assessment of

Ability to Perform Work-Related Activities (Physical), however, Dr. Brown did not make any

assessments on this form. Notably, this form concerns a claimant's ability to lift, carry, sit, stand,

use hands and feet, as well as other physical limits such as climbing, crawling, hearing and

speaking, but it does not address visual limitations at all. The instructions included with the

assessment state that the doctor should leave blank any area in which the doctor does not have

an opinion. (Tr. 246.)

Dr. Singleton stated in a letter to the Office of Hearings and Appeals, that "[t]he medical

assessment of ability to perform work related physical activities you sent for me is concerned

with orthopedic evaluation that I am not qualified to perform." Dr. Singleton then enclosed

Case 5:05-cv-05127-JRM Document 6 Filed 07/24/06 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

further medical records concerning the treatment plaintiff received for her visual limitations.

These records reflect that on March 10, 2003, plaintiff underwent cataract surgery in her left eye.

After that surgery, plaintiff had corrected 20/25 vision in her right eye and 20/40-1 in her left eye

with 20/20 near vision. (Tr. 247.) 

A remand hearing was held on March 1, 2005. (Tr. 279.) Plaintiff was represented by

counsel at this hearing. At the hearing, plaintiff amended her petition to ask for a closed period

of disability from January 4, 2002 to March 10, 2003, the date of plaintiff's cataract surgery. (Tr.

281.) Plaintiff testified about her past relevant work, which included that of a bookkeeper. (Tr.

282-290.) Plaintiff testified about her visual conditions and described the time line for the

treatments she received for the floater she experienced in her left eye and the detached retina for

which she underwent surgery in January 2002. 

In the initial decision, the ALJ found that plaintiff retained the RFC for "only that work

which is not precluded by an individual without stereoscopic vision." (Tr. 12.) Using the same

medical evidence, in the remand decision, the ALJ found that plaintiff retained the RFC for "only

that work which is not precluded by an individual with the following visual restrictions: in the

right eye, 20/25 vision, with a floater that sometimes requires the individual to move the head

or eye to see clearly, but this person's vision would clear after doing so; and, in the left eye, 20/50

vision, with double vision caused by problems in the left eye corrected by wearing an eyepatch,

but with a resultant loss of depth perception." (Tr. 197.) Based on the changed RFC, the ALJ

found that plaintiff could not perform her past relevant work. (Tr. 199.) The ALJ further found

that plaintiff could not perform a full-range of medium work, however the ALJ determined that

there were significant jobs in the economy, such as sedentary and skilled bookkeeper, medium

Case 5:05-cv-05127-JRM Document 6 Filed 07/24/06 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-4-

and unskilled janitor, and medium and unskilled maid/housekeeper, that plaintiff could perform.

(Tr. 198-199.) Therefore, the ALJ determined that plaintiff was not disabled from the onset date

until March 10, 2003. (Tr. 200.) 

The plaintiff filed her complaint with this court on July 25, 2005, seeking judicial review

of that decision. (Doc. 1.) Both parties have filed appeal briefs with the court. (Docs. 4-5.)

This case is before the undersigned pursuant to the consent of the parties. (Doc. 2.) 

Applicable Law

This court's role is to determine whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by

substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Ramirez v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 576, 583 (8th Cir.

2002). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance but it is enough that a reasonable mind

would find it adequate to support the Commissioner's decision. The ALJ's decision must be

affirmed if the record contains substantial evidence to support it. Edwards v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d

964, 966 (8th Cir. 2003). As long as there is substantial evidence in the record that supports the

Commissioner's decision, the court may not reverse it simply because substantial evidence exists

in the record that would have supported a contrary outcome, or because the court would have

decided the case differently. Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2001). In other

words, if after reviewing the record it is possible to draw two inconsistent positions from the

evidence and one of those positions represents the findings of the ALJ, the decision of the ALJ

must be affirmed. Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065, 1068 (8th Cir. 2000).

It is well-established that a claimant for Social Security disability benefits has the burden

of proving her disability by establishing a physical or mental disability that has lasted at least one

year and that prevents her from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. Pearsall v.

Case 5:05-cv-05127-JRM Document 6 Filed 07/24/06 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-5-

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 ormental impairment” as “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. § § 423(d)(3),

1382(3)(c). A plaintiff must show that her disability, not simply her impairment, has lasted for

at least twelve consecutive months.

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 her 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 her age, education, and experience. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. Only

if the final stage is reached does the fact finder consider the plaintiff's age, education, and work

experience in light of her residual functional capacity. See McCoy v. Schweiker, 683 F.2d 1138,

1141-42 (8th Cir. 1982); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920.

Discussion

In the prior case, we held that there was insufficient evidence to support the ALJ's RFC

determination, and remanded the case in order for the record to be further developed regarding

the plaintiff's RFC. As part of that development, we directed the ALJ to address interrogatories

to Dr. Singleton and Dr. Brown asking them to review the plaintiff's medical records, to

Case 5:05-cv-05127-JRM Document 6 Filed 07/24/06 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

 This Court has previously suggested that it might be advisable for the Secretary to 1

submit a short set of interrogatories to examining physicians which will require the physician

not only to set forth his full detailed opinion as to the extent of disability but also whether in

his opinion the claimant was disabled from pursuing substantial gainful activity or, in a

widow’s case, any gainful activity within the relevant time period of disability. Landess v.

Weinberger, 490 F.2d 1187, 1189 n. 2 (8 Cir.1974). (footnote in original) th

-6-

complete and RFC assessment regarding plaintiff's physical capabilities during the relevant time

period, and to give an objective basis for their opinions. 

Dr. Singleton and Dr. Brown treated plaintiff for her visual difficulties, however the RFC

form sent to Dr. Brown, and presumably to Dr. Singleton, makes no mention whatsoever about

visual impairments. Dr. Singleton even went as far as to point out this fact to the Commissioner

in a December 8, 2004 letter. (Tr. 247.) There is no evidence in the record that the

Commissioner ever sent interrogatories to these doctors as directed by the court. 

We noted this to be a situation in which interrogatories to the treating specialist would

be extremely beneficial to the comprehension of the claimant’s condition. And, as the Eighth

Circuit opined:

[If it was] felt it was important that the medical evidence specifically focus on the

[Commissioner’s] "Listing of Impairments," fairness required that he submit the

interrogatories designed for this purpose to the claimant’s physician as well. We 1

have made it clear that the ALJ "is in the peculiar position of acting as an

adjudicator while also being charged with developing the facts." Landess v.

Weinberger, supra at 1189. He or she "has a duty to fairly and fully develop the

matters at issue." Id. Accordingly, it was incumbent on the ALJ to give both

side’s doctors an opportunity to specifically address the key question at issue.

(footnote omitted). 

Woodard v. Schweiker, 668 F.2d 370, 374 (8 Cir. 1981). 

th

In response to this direction from the court, the Commissioner states in her brief

Additions were made to the record at the ALJ's request, but Dr. Singleton and Dr.

Brown have appeared to decline to offer a physical status assessment. Dr.

Case 5:05-cv-05127-JRM Document 6 Filed 07/24/06 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-7-

Singleton provided a letter indicating he was unqualified to perform an

orthopedic evaluation as requested (Tr. 247). Dr. Singleton also provided

additional evidence of Plaintiff's cataract surgery performed by Dr. Brown on

March 10, 2003 (Tr. 247, 248). Dr. Brown provided a signed blank medical

assessment of ability to perform work-related activities form (Tr. 246).. The

Commissioner notes that Dr. Singleton and Dr. Brown are ophthalmologists and

not orthopedics. These additionsto the medical evidence of record show the ALJ

complied with the District Court's remand order. 

(Doc. 5 at 9.) 

There is no basis for the Commissioner's assumption that Dr. Singleton and Dr. Brown

refused to offer an RFC assessment of plaintiff's condition, rather the form RFC provided to

these doctors was not relevant to plaintiff's visual limitations. That is the obvious reason why

the doctors have not submitted the ordered RFC on the plaintiff. The Commissioner has not

made a good faith effort to comply with this court's directive, and thus this matter must again be

remanded. As noted by the Eighth Circuit, the plaintiff's physicians have not been afforded the

opportunity to specifically address the key question at issue, that being plaintiff's visual

limitations during the relevant time period. No additional evidence has been obtained

concerning plaintiff's condition during the relevant time period, and therefore we cannot find that

substantial evidence supports the ALJ's findings. On remand, the ALJ is directed to comply with

the court's previous directions concerning the development of the record. 

Conclusion:

Accordingly, we conclude that the decision of the ALJ herein, denying benefits to the

Plaintiff, is not supported by substantial evidence of record, and should be reversed. This matter

should be remanded to the Commissioner for reconsideration consistent with this opinion. 

Case 5:05-cv-05127-JRM Document 6 Filed 07/24/06 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-8-

DATED this 24th day of July 2006.

/s/ Beverly Stites Jones

_________________________________________

HON. BEVERLY STITES JONES 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-05127-JRM Document 6 Filed 07/24/06 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>