Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00073/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00073-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mozelle Arrant
Plaintiff
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MOZELLE ARRANT, : 

: 

Plaintiff, : 

: 

v. : CIVIL ACTION 05-0073-M

: 

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, : 

: 

Defendant. : 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

In this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Plaintiff seeks

judicial review of an adverse social security ruling which

denied a claim for disability insurance benefits. The parties

filed written consent and this action has been referred to the

undersigned Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings and

order the entry of judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §

636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73 (see Doc. 15). Oral argument was

heard on August 22, 2005. Upon consideration of the

administrative record, the memoranda of the parties, and oral

argument, it is ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner

be AFFIRMED and that this action be DISMISSED.

This Court is not free to reweigh the evidence or

substitute its judgment for that of the Secretary of Health

and Human Services, Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233,

Case 1:05-cv-00073-M-M Document 16 Filed 08/22/05 Page 1 of 13
2

1239 (11th Cir. 1983), which must be supported by substantial

evidence. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). 

The substantial evidence test requires "that the decision

under review be supported by evidence sufficient to justify a

reasoning mind in accepting it; it is more than a scintilla,

but less than a preponderance." Brady v. Heckler, 724 F.2d

914, 918 (11th Cir. 1984), quoting Jones v. Schweiker, 551

F.Supp. 205 (D. Md. 1982).

Plaintiff was born September 10, 1946. At the time of

her asserted onset date, February 28, 1997 (Tr. 133), Arrant

was fifty years old, had completed an eleventh-grade education

(Tr. 58, 444), and had previous work experience as a

receptionist and a grocery clerk (Tr. 70-72, 444). In

claiming benefits, Plaintiff alleges disability due to

osteoarthritis and varicose veins (Doc. 11).

The Plaintiff filed an application for disability

benefits on July 10, 1997, alleging a disability onset date of

February 28, 1997 (Tr. 133-35). Benefits were denied

following a hearing by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who

determined that Arrant could perform several jobs which she

had performed in the past (Tr. 36-47). Plaintiff filed an

action in this Court in which it was determined that the ALJ

had not properly considered the full record; the action was

Case 1:05-cv-00073-M-M Document 16 Filed 08/22/05 Page 2 of 13
1The Court notes that on July 13, 2001, an ALJ held that Arrant

was disabled as of April 1, 1999, her asserted new disability onset

date, following a new disability application which had been filed on

April 4, 2000 (Doc. 10 Attachment). 

3

remanded back to the Social Security Administration for

further consideration (Tr. 345-55). Arrant v. Massanari, No.

00-0695-CB-S (S.D. Ala. June 11, 2001).1 On remand, following

another hearing, the ALJ found that Arrant could return to her

past relevant work as a receptionist (Tr. 328-41). Plaintiff

requested review of the hearing decision (Tr. 326-27) by the

Appeals Council, but it was denied (Tr. 322-25).

Plaintiff claims that the opinion of the ALJ is not

supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, Arrant

alleges that: (1) The ALJ did not properly consider the

opinions and diagnoses of her treating physician; (2) the ALJ

did not properly consider the opinions of a consultative

physician; (3) the ALJ did not make specific findings as to

the job duties and demands of her past work; and (4) the ALJ

improperly discounted her claim of pain and limitation (Doc.

10). Defendant has responded to—and denies—these claims (Doc.

12).

Before discussing the claims, the Court notes that the

focus of this inquiry is the period of time between February

28, 1997, Arrant’s asserted disability onset date, and April

Case 1:05-cv-00073-M-M Document 16 Filed 08/22/05 Page 3 of 13
2The Eleventh Circuit, in the en banc decision Bonner v. City of

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981), adopted as precedent

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1,

1981.

4

1, 1999, the date she has been found to be disabled. The

balance of the evidence will be considered only to the extent

that it relates to this period of time.

Plaintiff's first claim is that the ALJ did not accord

proper legal weight to the opinions, diagnoses and medical

evidence of Plaintiff's physicians. Arrant specifically

references Dr. F. D. Salter (Doc. 10, pp. 4-5). It should be

noted that "although the opinion of an examining physician is

generally entitled to more weight than the opinion of a nonexamining physician, the ALJ is free to reject the opinion of

any physician when the evidence supports a contrary

conclusion." Oldham v. Schweiker, 660 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th

Cir. 1981);2 see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (2005).

Plaintiff first saw Dr. Salter on December 21, 1998 for

complaints of dizziness and left leg pain (Tr. 392). The

physician noted elevated blood pressure and degenerative

disease of the spine, but stated that her worse problem was

Case 1:05-cv-00073-M-M Document 16 Filed 08/22/05 Page 4 of 13
3Lotensin is used for the treatment of hypertension. 

Physician's Desk Reference 1870-72 (52nd ed. 1998). 

4Propoxyphene napsylate, more commonly known as Darvocet, is a

class four narcotic used “for the relief of mild to moderate pain”

and commonly causes dizziness and sedation. Physician's Desk

Reference 1443-44 (52nd ed. 1998). 

5Lodine is “indicated for acute and long-term use in the

management of signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid

arthritis. Lodine is also indicated for the management of pain.” 

Physician's Desk Reference 3062-64 (52nd ed. 1998). 

6The copy of the evidentiary record only shows the date as being

“ /6/99" but at the end of the notation is a statement that Salter

had written a letter for Arrant (Tr. 391); that letter was written on

January 8, 1999 (Tr. 295). The ALJ also indicated that this doctor’s

visit occurred two weeks after the first examination (Tr. 336). 

5

phlebitis; Salter prescribed Lotensin,3 Darvocet,4 and Lodine5

(Tr. 392). On that same date, Dr. Salter admitted Arrant to

the hospital, for a one-night visit, to treat the Phlebitis

(Tr. 393-429). On the discharge summary, the doctor noted

that Plaintiff had “varicose veins in the lower extremities,

greater on the left . . . [but] did not have deep venous

thrombosis” (Tr. 395). The summary also noted that although

her shoulder x-ray showed some arthritic changes, it was

normal; x-rays of the chest, heart, and lungs were also normal

(id.). A venous study of the lower extremities was also

normal (Tr. 395). On January 6, 1999,6 the doctor indicated

the the deep venous thrombosis and varicose veins were

clearing; his records also indicated that in addition to the

Case 1:05-cv-00073-M-M Document 16 Filed 08/22/05 Page 5 of 13
7Xanax is a class four narcotic used for the management of

anxiety disorders. Physician's Desk Reference 2294 (52nd ed. 1998).

8Keflex is used for the treatment of various infections. 

Physician's Desk Reference 854-56 (52nd ed. 1998). 

9Restoril is used for the short-term treatment of insomnia. 

Physician's Desk Reference 1894-96 (52nd ed. 1998). 

6

medications already listed, Arrant was taking Avapro, Xanax,7

Keflex,8 and Restoril9 (Tr. 391). 

On January 8, 1999, Dr. Salter wrote a letter which

stated that Plaintiff had numerous problems, any of which

“would make her permanently disabled” (Tr. 295). The balance

of the letter is as follows: 

1. Hypertension. Diastolic hypertension,

reasonably well controlled on medications

but not totally. 2. Severe degenerative

disc disease in her back, in fact her

entire spine. She has trouble with both

sitting, stooping, lying and cannot squat. 

She cannot arise from a squatting position

at all. She would have difficulty sitting

long enough to ride for an hour. 3. She

has phlebitis in both legs, rather

pronounced varicosities. She was in the

hospital recently for phlebitis and

possible thrombophlebitis.

As this lady can neither sit, stand,

or lie for any prolonged length of time, I

do not see that she can ever have any type

of gainful employment. In short, I feel

she is permanently disabled.

(Tr. 295). On February 18, 1999, Salter treated Plaintiff for

the flu (Tr. 391). 

Case 1:05-cv-00073-M-M Document 16 Filed 08/22/05 Page 6 of 13
10Plaintiff’s attorney stated that the ALJ did not cite the

hospital records (Doc. 10, p. 5), but the evidence shows otherwise

(Tr. 336). Though Plaintiff’s attorney also stated that the ALJ

failed to cite Dr. Salter’s letter (Tr. 296), dated August 2, 1999,

the Court notes that this references a date after which disability

benefits had been awarded and was, therefore, beyond the ALJ’s stated

period of consideration as nothing in it relates to the relevant time

period (Tr. 332).

7

The ALJ noted these examinations and the

hospitalization,10 but rejected Dr. Salter’s conclusions as

“unsupported by the evidence and . . . lack[ing] a credible

basis” (Tr. 336-37). In reaching this conclusion, the ALJ

noted that Salter’s own letter indicated that Arrant’s

hypertension was, for the most part, controlled and that

medical notes indicated that her varicose veins were clearing;

he further noted that there were no x-rays or other objective

evidence to support a diagnosis of degenerative disc disease

(Tr. 336). As Arrant has failed to demonstrate any objective

evidence—from Dr. Salter or any other physician—which supports

Dr. Salter’s conclusions for the relevant time period, the

Court finds that the ALJ’s conclusions are supported by

substantial evidence. Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.

Arrant next claims that the ALJ did not properly consider

the opinions of a consultative physician. More specifically,

Plaintiff points to the ALJ’s rejection of Dr. Vijay J. Vyas’s

“‘conclusion that the claimant is unable to perform pushing

Case 1:05-cv-00073-M-M Document 16 Filed 08/22/05 Page 7 of 13
8

and pulling and fine manipulation with her right upper

extremity, and no evidence that she is unable to perform

frequent reaching’” (Doc. 10, p. 7) (quoting Tr. 338). 

Dr. Vyas’s examination notes of June 16, 1998 state the

following: 

There is slight tenderness in the lower

cervical area. . . . The right shoulder is

tender posteriorly. Movements of the

shoulders are not restricted but they are

painful beyond about 70 degrees. The elbow

and the wrist are unremarkable though she

complains of pain and stiffness in the

fingers. The fingers are not swollen and

they do not look inflammed [sic].

(Tr. 281). The Internist’s diagnostic impression was

“[g]eneralized arthralgia probably from osteoarthritis with

possible bursitis of the right shoulder” (Tr. 282). An X-ray

of the right shoulder found “slight degenerative type change

along the AC joint” but no fracture or dislocation (Tr. 283). 

The Court finds substantial support for the ALJ’s

rejection of Vyas’s opinion which restricted her fine

manipulation and pushing and pulling of arm controls on the

right. Neither the X-ray evidence nor Vyas’s own examination

notes support the restrictions. This claim is of no merit.

Plaintiff next claims that the ALJ did not make specific

findings as to the job duties and demands of her past work. 

Case 1:05-cv-00073-M-M Document 16 Filed 08/22/05 Page 8 of 13
9

Arrant has directed this Court’s attention to Social Security

Ruling 82-62 which states that the ALJ, in finding that a

claimant can perform past relevant work, must make a specific

“finding of fact as to the physical and mental demands of the

past job/occupation.” Social Security Ruling 82-62 (1982 WL

31386, *4 (S.S.A.)). In discussing the nature of this finding

of fact, the Ruling states the following:

Adequate documentation of past work

includes factual information about those

work demands which have a bearing on the

medically established limitations. 

Detailed information about strength,

endurance, manipulative ability, mental

demands and other job requirements must be

obtained as appropriate. This information

will be derived from a detailed description

of the work obtained from the claimant,

employer, or other informed source. 

Information concerning job titles, dates

work was performed, rate of compensation,

tools and machines used, knowledge

required, the extent of supervision and

independent judgment required, and a

description of tasks and responsibilities

will permit a judgment as to the skill

level and the current relevance of the

individual's work experience. In addition,

for a claim involving a mental/ emotional

impairment, care must be taken to obtain a

precise description of the particular job

duties which are likely to produce tension

and anxiety, e.g., speed, precision,

complexity of tasks, independent judgments,

working with other people, etc., in order

to determine if the claimant's mental

impairment is compatible with the

performance of such work. Persons with

physical impairments (e.g., cardiovascular

Case 1:05-cv-00073-M-M Document 16 Filed 08/22/05 Page 9 of 13
11Plaintiff testified at the most recent hearing, however, that

she did not supervise office staff (Tr. 449). 

12“If we cannot make a decision based on your current work

activity or on medical facts alone, and you have a severe

10

or gastrointestinal disorders) may have

performed stressful tasks. This may also

require a decision as to whether the

impairment is compatible with the

performance of such work. If more than one

job was performed during the 15-year

period, separate descriptions of each job

will be secured.

Social Security Ruling 82-62 (1982 WL 31386, *3 (S.S.A.)). 

The Court notes that Plaintiff completed a social

security form which indicated that her job as a receptionist

required her to use machines, tools, and equipment, required

technical knowledge and skills, required her to complete

written reports, and required her to take on supervisory

responsibilities (Tr. 156-57).11 Additionally, Arrant reported

that her job required her to walk four, stand three, and sit

four hours during a typical work day; she had to bend

frequently, but had to lift only ten pounds in completing her

tasks (Tr. 157). The Vocational Expert testified that

Arrant’s work was sedentary and semi-skilled (Tr. 451). 

The Court finds that the ALJ has, at most, committed

harmless error in satisfying the requirements of Ruling 82-62

and 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(e) (2005).12 There is sufficient

Case 1:05-cv-00073-M-M Document 16 Filed 08/22/05 Page 10 of 13
impairment(s), we then review your residual functional capacity and

the physical and mental demands of the work you have done in the

past.”

11

evidence of record for the ALJ to have made the determination

that Plaintiff could return to her past work as a

receptionist.

Arrant’s final claim is that the ALJ improperly

discounted her claim of pain and limitation. The standard by

which the Plaintiff's complaints of pain are to be evaluated

requires "(1) evidence of an underlying medical condition and

either (2) objective medical evidence that confirms the

severity of the alleged pain arising from that condition or

(3) that the objectively determined medical condition is of

such a severity that it can be reasonably expected to give

rise to the alleged pain." Holt v. Sullivan, 921 F.2d 1221,

1223 (11th Cir. 1991) (citing Landry v. Heckler, 782 F.2d

1551, 1553 (11th Cir. 1986)). The Eleventh Circuit Court of

Appeals has also held that the determination of whether

objective medical impairments could reasonably be expected to

produce the pain was a factual question to be made by the

Secretary and, therefore, "subject only to limited review in

the courts to ensure that the finding is supported by

substantial evidence." Hand v. Heckler, 761 F.2d 1545, 1549

(11th Cir.), vacated for rehearing en banc, 774 F.2d 428

Case 1:05-cv-00073-M-M Document 16 Filed 08/22/05 Page 11 of 13
12

(1985), reinstated sub nom. Hand v. Bowen, 793 F.2d 275 (11th

Cir. 1986). 

Plaintiff testified at the hearing that she suffers

“overall pain from osteoporosis and degenerative disc disease,

phlebitis, blood clots in [her] legs, and a hiatal hernia;”

additionally, she had a peptic ulcer and blood pressure

problems (Tr. 436). These impairments, plus arthritis, force

her to take medications regularly (Tr. 437-39). Arrant

testified that she can wash a few dishes or stack them in the

dishwasher (Tr. 441). At the first hearing, Plaintiff stated

that she could walk for thirty minutes and lift only one and

one-half pounds (Tr. 55-56). Arrant testified that her

daughter-in-law and husband did most of the housework (Tr. 59-

60, 440-41).

The ALJ specifically held as follows: “While it is

credible that the claimant experiences some functional

limitations secondary to her varicose veins and

osteoarthritis, there is no objective evidence that she

experiences the level of dysfunction to the extent she has

alleged” (Tr. 338). The ALJ went on to point out that no

physical examination or objective test had demonstrated the

extreme limitations to which she had testified (id.). The

Court finds the ALJ’s conclusion to be supported by

Case 1:05-cv-00073-M-M Document 16 Filed 08/22/05 Page 12 of 13
13

substantial evidence.

Plaintiff brought this action, raising four claims. All

four are without merit. Though Arrant has, apparently,

demonstrated disability as of April 1, 1999, she has failed to

demonstrate, through objective medical evidence, that it dates

to February 28, 1997. 

Upon consideration of the entire record, the Court finds

"such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as

adequate to support a conclusion." Perales, 402 U.S. at 401. 

Therefore, it is ORDERED that the Secretary's decision be

AFFIRMED, see Fortenberry v. Harris, 612 F.2d 947, 950 (5th

Cir. 1980), and that this action be DISMISSED. Judgment will

be entered by separate order.

DONE this 22nd day of August, 2005.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00073-M-M Document 16 Filed 08/22/05 Page 13 of 13