Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-18-03746/USCOURTS-ca8-18-03746-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Angela Pemberton
Appellant
Andrew Saul
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-3746

___________________________

Angela Pemberton

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Andrew Saul, Commissioner, Social Security Administration

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Batesville

 ____________

 Submitted: September 25, 2019

Filed: March 9, 2020

____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

KOBES, Circuit Judge.

Angela Pemberton appeals the judgment of the district court1 upholding the

denial of her application for disability benefits. She argues the ALJ’s residual

1

 The Honorable Billy Roy Wilson, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Joe

J. Volpe, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Appellate Case: 18-3746 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/09/2020 Entry ID: 4889049
function capacity (RFC) finding relating to her right hand is not supported by

substantial evidence. We affirm.

I.

Pemberton filed for disability insurance benefits in June 2015. Her application

was based on several health conditions that impacted her legs, left hip, back, neck,

and left shoulder (including spondylolisthesis, disc disease, sprains, and fractures). 

The application was denied initially and again on reconsideration. In October 2015,

she requested a hearing before an ALJ.

While waiting for the hearing, Pemberton started having pain in her right arm. 

Dr. James Allen, an orthopedic surgeon, diagnosed right arm cubital tunnel syndrome. 

He performed corrective surgery on February 1, 2017. Between February and May,

Pemberton saw Dr. Allen for multiple postoperative visits and she started physical

therapy. On May 12, 2017, while she was still recovering from her arm surgery, the

ALJ held a hearing on her disability application.

Following the five-step process for deciding disability, see 20 C.F.R.

§ 404.1520, the ALJ found Pemberton satisfied the first two steps because she had

not engaged in substantial gainful activity since February 2015 and had several severe

impairments. The ALJ also found that these impairments did not correspond with the

automatic disability impairments listed in Social Security regulations. Next, the ALJ

determined her RFC and found Pemberton could perform sedentary work “except she

can only occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, and only occasionally use stairs or

stand on uneven surfaces. She has frequent but not constant use of her right upper

extremity for grasping, handling, and fingering.” AD-4. The ALJ then found

Pemberton’s RFC prevented her from performing her past job. Finally, the ALJ

concluded that despite her serious impairments, Pemberton could be employed as a

document preparer or telephone quote clerk. Because those jobs exist in the national

-2-

Appellate Case: 18-3746 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/09/2020 Entry ID: 4889049
economy in significant numbers, the ALJ ruled she was not disabled and denied her

application. The Social Security Appeals Council, the magistrate judge, and the

district court all affirmed. Pemberton timely appealed.

II.

“We review de novo the district court’s judgment upholding the denial of social

security benefits.” Julin v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 1082, 1086 (8th Cir. 2016) (citation

omitted). “We will affirm the district court’s judgment if, based on the record as a

whole, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination.” Id. “Substantial

evidence is less than a preponderance, but enough that a reasonable mind would find

it adequate to support the ALJ’s decision.” Id.

This case turns on whether the ALJ’s finding that Pemberton can perform

frequent but not constant grasping, handling, and fingering with her right arm is

supported by substantial evidence. Pemberton concedes that her right arm problems

are not disabling on their own. Instead she argues that her “manipulative abilities are

more limited than the ALJ found,” Pemberton Br. i, so she cannot work as a

document preparer or telephone quote clerk and is eligible for disability benefits.

Having reviewed the record, we find substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s

RFC. One week after surgery, Pemberton reported that her right elbow pain was a 4

out of 10, while her wrist pain was a 7 out of 10. Dr. Allen also noted that she had

mild tenderness and a decreased range of motion. By the end of March, her overall

pain had lessened to a 6 out of 10 even though Pemberton had “used [her arm] more

than she should” doing household chores. By May 2017, Dr. Allen’s records show

her range of motion “lack[ed] 10 degrees of full extension,” but that was an

improvement from February. Tr. 697. He also noted that Pemberton did not suffer

pain or instability during a valgus stress test. And at physical therapy, Pemberton had

minimal complaints of pain and had an improvement in her range of motion due to

decreased pain and stiffness.

-3-

Appellate Case: 18-3746 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/09/2020 Entry ID: 4889049
Pemberton overlooks this evidence and primarily relies on Dr. Allen’s opinions

that her arm had not responded to treatment and that she was not healing well. See

Pemberton Br. 33–35. Although “[a] treating physician’s opinion should be accorded

substantial weight,” Prince v. Bowen, 894 F.2d 283, 285 (8th Cir. 1990), “[m]edical

records, physician observation, and the claimant’s subjective statements about [her]

capabilities may be used to support the RFC,” Partee v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 860, 865

(8th Cir. 2011). If the treating physician’s opinion is internally inconsistent or

conflicts with substantial evidence contained within the medical record as a whole,

the ALJ may afford it less weight. See Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010, 1013–14 (8th

Cir. 2000); Hacker v. Barnhart, 459 F.3d 934, 937 (8th Cir. 2006).2 Here, because

there was substantial evidence in the record that Pemberton was responding to

treatment, the ALJ was not required to accept Dr. Allen’s suggestions to the contrary.

Pemberton also points us to Dr. Allen’s observation that Pemberton “was not

considered employable.” Pemberton Br. 34. Though Pemberton concedes that

whether she is employable is “ultimately a vocational question,” not a medical

opinion, she argues that it “suggests that [Dr. Allen] believed [she had] serious

continuing problems with her right arm and that her arm had not responded to

treatment.” Id. We agree that the statement is not controlling. See Stormo v.

Barnhart, 377 F.3d 801, 806 (8th Cir. 2004). We also acknowledge that Pemberton

suffered from pain and numbness in her right arm and that she may have healed

slowly following surgery. But, like the district court, we conclude that substantial

evidence supports the RFC.

We find that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and

affirm the district court’s judgment.

______________________________

2

 Pemberton filed her disability insurance application in June 2015. Since then,

the Social Security Administration has adopted new regulations about the weight

afforded to treating physicians’ opinions, but those regulations only apply to claims

filed after March 27, 2017. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c.

-4-

Appellate Case: 18-3746 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/09/2020 Entry ID: 4889049