Davis v. Social Security Administration, No. 2:2009cv00149 - Document 11 (E.D. Ark. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that the ALJ's decision is reversed and this proceeding is remanded. This is a "sentence four" remand. Judgment will be entered for Davis. Signed by Magistrate Judge H. David Young on 11/15/2010. (lej)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Davis v. Social Security Administration Doc. 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASTERN DIVISION DONALD DAVIS PLAINTIFF v. NO. 2:09CV00149 HDY MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of t he Social Securit y Administ rat ion DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER BACKGROUND. Plaint iff Donald Davis (“ Davis” ) began his at t empt t o obt ain benefit s by filing an applicat ion for disabilit y insurance benefit s pursuant t o t he provisions of t he Social Securit y Act (“ Act ” ). His applicat ion was denied init ially and upon reconsiderat ion. He next request ed, and received, a de novo hearing before an Administ rat ive Law Judge (“ ALJ” ), who event ually issued a decision adverse t o Davis. He t hen appealed t he ALJ’ s decision. The Appeals Council affirmed t he ALJ’ s decision, which became t he final decision of t he Commissioner of t he Social Securit y Administ rat ion (“ Commissioner” ). Davis t hen commenced t his proceeding by filing a complaint pursuant t o 42 U.S.C. 405(g). In t he complaint , he challenged t he Commissioner’ s final decision. -1- Dockets.Justia.com STANDARD OF REVIEW. The sole inquiry for t he Court is t o det ermine whet her t he ALJ’ s findings are support ed by subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole. The st andard requires t he Court t o t ake int o considerat ion “ t he weight of t he evidence in t he record and apply a balancing t est t o evidence which is cont rary.” See Heino v. Ast rue, 578 F.3d 873, 878 (8t h Cir. 2009) [int ernal quot at ions and cit at ions omit t ed]. THE ALJ’ S FINDINGS. The ALJ made findings pursuant t o t he five st ep sequent ial evaluat ion process. At st ep one, t he ALJ found t hat Davis has not engaged in subst ant ial gainful act ivit y since t he alleged onset dat e. At st ep t wo, t he ALJ found t hat Davis has t he following severe impairment s: “ a hist ory of t reat ment for diabet es mellit us, back pain, and t inea pedis.” See Transcript at 14. At st ep t hree, t he ALJ found t hat Davis does not have an impairment or combinat ion of impairment s list ed in, or medically equal t o one list ed in, t he governing regulat ions. The ALJ t hen assessed Davis’ residual funct ional capacit y and found t hat he can perf orm “ light work wit h a sit / st and opt ion.” See Transcript at 18. At st ep four, t he ALJ found t hat Davis cannot perform his past relevant work because t he demands of t he work exceed his residual funct ional capacit y. At st ep five, t he ALJ found t hat considering Davis’ residual funct ional capacit y, age, educat ion, and work experience in conj unct ion wit h t he t est imony of vocat ional expert , t here are j obs t hat exist in significant numbers in t he nat ional economy t hat Davis can perform. Accordingly, t he ALJ concluded t hat Davis is not disabled wit hin t he meaning of t he Act . -2- THE APPEALS COUNCIL. Davis appealed t he ALJ’ s decision. In t he course of t he appeal, Davis submit t ed addit ional evidence in t he form of a medical assessment from his t reat ing physician, Dr. Scot t Hall (“ Hall” ). The Appeals Council considered Hall’ s assessment but nevert heless affirmed t he ALJ’ s decision. DAVIS’ ASSERTIONS OF ERROR. Are t he ALJ’ s findings support ed by subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole? Davis t hinks not and advances t he following t hree reasons why: (1) no explanat ion was given for rej ect ing Hall’ s opinions and assessment ; (2) t he ALJ failed t o properly consider t he effect s of Davis’ subj ect ive complaint s of pain; and (3) t he ALJ failed t o prove t hat t here is ot her work in t he nat ional economy t hat Davis can perform. THE TREATMENT OF HALL’ SOPINIONSAND ASSESSMENT. Davis first maint ains t hat no explanat ion was given for rej ect ing Hall’ s opinions and assessment . The weight t o be given a t reat ing physician’ s medical opinion is clear. In Choat e v. Barnhart , 457 F.3d 865, 869 (8t h Cir. 2006), t he Court of Appeals art iculat ed t hat weight as follows: A t reat ing physician's medical opinion is given cont rolling weight if t hat opinion is “ well-support ed by medically accept able clinical and laborat ory diagnost ic t echniques and is not inconsist ent wit h t he ot her subst ant ial evidence in [t he] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). These opinions are not aut omat ically cont rolling, however, because t he record must be evaluat ed as a whole. Reed v. Barnhart , 399 F.3d 917, 920 (8t h Cir.2005). We will uphold an ALJ’ s decision t o discount or even disregard t he opinion of a t reat ing physician where “ ot her medical assessment s are support ed by bet t er or more t horough medical evidence, or where a t reat ing physician renders inconsist ent opinions t hat undermine t he credibilit y of such opinions.” Id. at 920-21 ... -3- Social Securit y Ruling 96-2p requires t he ALJ t o provide specific reasons for t he weight given a t reat ing physician’ s medical opinion. The Policy Int erpret at ion of t he Ruling provides t hat t he ALJ’ s decision must be sufficient ly specific t o make clear t o a subsequent reviewer t he weight t he ALJ gave t he t reat ing physician’ s medical opinion and t he reasons for t hat weight . Hall examined Davis on numerous occasions bet ween December of 1999 and April of 2007, and t he record cont ains numerous pages of not es and impressions complied by Hall during t hose examinat ions. See Transcript at 160-175, 181-220. The ALJ made lit t le ment ion of t he not es and impressions in his decision, t he only ment ion being as follows: [Davis] cont inued t o receive t reat ment for his foot problem. In Oct ober 2005, [he] was prescribed Neuront in t hree t imes a day for neuropat hic pain. In April 2006, [he] was prescribed Naprelyn which he had not t aken as report ed in a progress not ed in June 2006. In February 2007, he complained of swelling in his feet and leg pain. [Hall] report ed [Davis] had j oint pain, swelling and a skin rash and diagnosed hypert ension, rheumat oid art hrit is, j oint pain and rash. [Davis] was prescribed Soma, Lorcet Plus and Elidel cream for rash. The t reat ment [Davis] received for t he last several years has been wit h [Hall]. [Davis] was not referred t o a specialist for his foot problems. He was prescribed creams and pain medicat ion. See Transcript at 15. The ALJ did not specify t he weight he assigned t o Hall’ s not es and impressions. It appears t hat t he ALJ did not view t hem wit h much regard as he inst ead relied heavily upon t he findings made by Drs. Sudhir Kumar, a consult at ive physician, and Franklin Adams, who examined Davis at Hall’ s request . Davis appealed t o t he Appeals Council and, in t he course of t hat appeal, submit t ed -4- a medical assessment of his condit ion from Hall. See Transcript at 243-244. The assessment was based, in part , upon Davis’ medical hist ory. Hall represent ed t hat Davis’ limit at ions were much more severe t han found by t he ot her medical professionals and t he ALJ. Hall specifically represent ed, int er alia, t hat Davis’ impairment s limit ed him t o st anding/ walking for no more t han t hirt y minut es at one t ime and for a t ot al of t wo hours in an eight hour workday and t hat his impairment s can be expect ed t o cause severe pain. The Appeals Council did not specify t he weight it assigned t o Hall’ s assessment but simply not ed t hat “ t his informat ion does not provide a basis for changing t he [ALJ’ s] decision.” See Transcript at 6. The Court finds t here t o be a lack of clarit y regarding t he weight given Hall’ s not es, impressions, and assessment . The ALJ did not specify t he weight he assigned t o Hall’ s not es and impressions, and t he Appeal Council did not specify t he weight it assigned t o his assessment . It is obvious t hat his not es, impressions, and assessment were not given much credence, but t he Court can only guess why. 1 Because t he reasons why are not sufficient ly specific, a remand is warrant ed so t hat t he ALJ can clarify t he weight given Hall’ s not es, impressions, and assessment . OTHER MATTERS. Davis also maint ains t hat t he effect s of his subj ect ive 1 It is possible t hat t he ALJ and t he Appeals Council found Hall’ s not es, impressions, and assessment were not support ed by medically accept able clinical and laborat ory diagnost ic t echniques; were inconsist ent wit h ot her, more t horough medical evidence; and/ or cont ained inconsist ent opinions t hat undermined his credibilit y. Those findings are not , however, evident in t he record. -5- complaint s of pain were not properly considered and t here is no proof he can perform ot her work in t he nat ional economy. Wit h regard t o t he former assert ion, Hall represent ed in his assessment t hat Davis’ impairment s can be expect ed t o cause “ severe pain.” See Transcript at 244. Thus, t here is some evidence in t he record t hat conflict s wit h t he ALJ’ s finding t hat Davis’ pain is not of a “ durat ion, frequency or int ensit y as t o be disabling nor would it preclude t he performance of light work.” See Transcript at 17. Upon remand, t he ALJ shall re-consider Davis’ subj ect ive complaint s of pain, giving t he appropriat e weight t o Hall’ s finding as t o t he severit y of Davis’ pain. Once t he ALJ det ermines t he appropriat e weight due Hall’ s not es, impressions, and assessment , and t he appropriat e weight due his finding as t o t he severit y of Davis’ pain, t he ALJ shall reconsider whet her Davis can perform ot her work in t he nat ional economy. CONCLUSION. The ALJ’ s findings are not support ed by subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole, and a remand is necessary. Upon remand, t he ALJ shall clarify t he weight given Hall’ s not es, impressions, and assessment . In addit ion, t he ALJ shall det ermine t he appropriat e weight given Hall’ s finding as t o t he severit y of Davis’ pain and shall re-consider whet her Davis can perf orm ot her work in t he nat ional economy. The ALJ’ s decision is reversed, and t his proceeding is remanded. This remand is a “ sent ence four” remand as t hat phrase is defined in 42 U.S.C. 405(g) and Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991). Judgment will be ent ered for Davis. IT IS SO ORDERED t his 15 day of November, 2010. -6- UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE -7-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
