Poindexter v. Social Security Administration, No. 3:2014cv00079 - Document 13 (E.D. Ark. 2015)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order affirming the decision of the Commissioner and dismissing, with prejudice, Plaintiff's 2 Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 07/31/2015. (rhm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Poindexter v. Social Security Administration Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION TONY POINDEXTER v. PLAINTIFF NO. 3:14-cv-00079 JTR CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Act ing Commissioner of t he Social Securit y Administ rat ion DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaint iff, Tony Poindext er (“ Poindext er” ), has appealed t he final decision of t he Commissioner of t he Social Securit y Administ rat ion (t he "Commissioner"), denying his claims for Disabilit y Insurance Benefit s (“ DIB” ) and Supplement al Securit y Income ("SSI"). Bot h part ies have filed Appeal Briefs (docs. 11 and 12), and t he issues are now j oined and ready for disposit ion. Poindext er argues t hat t he ALJ’ s findings are not support ed by subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole. 1 Poindext er specifically cont ends t hat his residual funct ional capacit y was not properly assessed, and he advances t wo reasons why it was not . He first maint ains t hat he cannot perform t he st anding, walking, or sit t ing 1 The quest ion for t he Court is whet her t he ALJ’ s findings are support ed by subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole. “ Subst ant ial evidence means less t han a preponderance but enough t hat a reasonable person would find it adequat e t o support t he decision.” See Boet t cher v. Ast rue, 652 F.3d 860, 863 (8t h Cir. 2011). Dockets.Justia.com requirement s of light work, which t he ALJ found he is capable of performing. Second, Poindext er maint ains t hat his subj ect ive complaint s regarding his work-relat ed limit at ions were not properly evaluat ed because t he ALJ discount ed t hem simply because t hey were inconsist ent wit h t he medical evidence. The ALJ is required t o assess t he claimant ’ s residual funct ional capacit y, which is a det erminat ion of “ t he most a person can do despit e t hat person’ s limit at ions.” See Brown v. Barnhart , 390 F.3d 535, 538-39 (8t h Cir. 2004). It is made using all of t he relevant evidence in t he record but must be support ed by some medical evidence. See Wildman v. Ast rue, 596 F.3d 959 (8t h Cir. 2010). As a part of making t he assessment , t he ALJ must evaluat e t he claimant ’ s subj ect ive complaint s. See Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8t h Cir. 1984). The ALJ does so by considering t he medical evidence as well as evidence relat ing t o such mat t ers as t he claimant ’ s daily act ivit ies; t he durat ion, frequency, and int ensit y of his pain; t he dosage, effect iveness, and side effect s of his medicat ion; precipit at ing and aggravat ing fact ors; and funct ional rest rict ions. See Id. The ALJ found t hat Poindext er has severe impairment s in t he form of back pain, gast ro-esophageal reflux disease, anxiet y, depression, and pancreat it is. The ALJ assessed Poindext er’ s residual funct ional capacit y and found t hat alt hough he experiences “ mild t o moderat e pain,” he can perform light work. See Transcript at 15. 2 In so finding, t he ALJ gave some considerat ion t o Poindext er’ s subj ect ive complaint s. 2 The ALJ found t hat Poindext er’ s non-exert ional impairment s cause addit ional work-relat ed limit at ions. Poindext er does not challenge t he assessment made of his ment al residual funct ional capacit y. -2- Subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole support s t he ALJ’ s assessment of Poindext er’ s residual funct ional capacit y. Specifically, subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole support s t he ALJ’ s finding t hat Poindext er can perform t he st anding, walking, or sit t ing requirement s of light work. Subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole also support s t he ALJ’ s evaluat ion of Poindext er’ s subj ect ive complaint s. Alt hough t he ALJ’ s evaluat ion of his complaint s was not exhaust ive, it was adequat e. Wit h respect t o Poindext er’ s abilit y t o perform t he st anding, walking, or sit t ing requirement s of light work, t he Court not es t hat light work involves, among ot her t hings, a good deal of st anding, walking, or sit t ing most of t he t ime. See 20 C.F.R. 404.1567(b). In Frankl v. Shalala, 47 F.3d 935, 937 (8t h Cir. 1995), t he Court of Appeals observed t hat “ [l]ight work requires t hat a claimant be capable of st anding or walking for a t ot al of six hours out of an eight -hour workday.” The medical evidence reflect s t hat Poindext er was seen at t he Five Rivers Medical Cent er on t hree occasions bet ween Oct ober of 2010 and May of 2012. See Transcript at 231-330, 335-347, 405-414. Alt hough he present ed complaining of problems unrelat ed t o his abilit y t o st and, walk, or sit , t he findings and observat ions of t he medical st aff shed some light on his abilit y t o perform t hose act ivit ies. The st aff found t hat he had a full range of mot ion in his ext remit ies, see Transcript at 243, 411; ambulat ed independent ly, see Transcript at 249, 339; and performed his act ivit ies of daily living independent ly, see Transcript at 411. The medical evidence reflect s t hat Dr. Roger Troxel, M.D., (“ Troxel” ) saw -3- Poindext er on nine occasions bet ween Oct ober of 2010 and December of 2012 for various complaint s. See Transcript at 349, 350, 351, 352, 364, 420, 447, 448, 449. Troxel diagnosed, among ot her t hings, ost eoart hrit is, pancreat it is, and chronic pain, and prescribed medicat ion. It is difficult t o glean much from his progress not es, but Troxel did repeat edly st ress t he import ance of diet and exercise. The medical evidence reflect s t hat Poindext er was seen at St . Bernard’ s Medical Cent er in August of 2012 for his complaint s of weakness, passing out , and swelling. See Transcript at 435-444. Edema and muscle weakness were diagnosed. He nevert heless report ed no musculoskelet al sympt oms, and an examinat ion of his ext remit ies revealed a normal range of mot ion. The medical evidence reflect s t hat Dr. Terry Hunt , M.D., (“ Hunt ” ) saw Poindext er on t wo occasions in August of 2012 for his complaint s of abdominal pain. See Transcript at 423-425, 426-429. Hunt diagnosed pancreat it is and a liver disorder. Hunt observed, t hough, t hat Poindext er had no t ingling or numbness and “ no gait abnormalit ies.” See Transcript at 423, 426. The medical evidence reflect s t hat , in February of 2012, Dr. Charles Friedman, M.D., (“ Friedman” ) reviewed Poindext er’ s medical records. See Transcript at 355-362. Friedman opined t hat Poindext er could st and, walk, or sit for a t ot al of about six hours in an eight -hour workday and was capable of performing light work. Friedman’ s opinion was subsequent ly affirmed by Dr. Sharon Keit h, M.D. See Transcript at 402. The medical evidence also reflect s t hat , in March of 2012, Dr. Samuel Hest er, -4- Ph.D., (“ Hest er” ) performed a ment al diagnost ic evaluat ion of Poindext er. See Transcript at 365-374. Alt hough t he bulk of Hest er’ s findings were underst andably limit ed t o assessing Poindext er’ s ment al st at us, Hest er did make findings t hat were germane t o Poindext er’ s physical st at us. Hest er diagnosed, among ot her t hings, a pain disorder associat ed wit h bot h medical and psychological fact ors and not ed t he following: “ It is report edly [Poindext er’ s] physical pain t hat keeps him from remaining employed.” See Transcript at 372. Wit h respect t o t he non-medical evidence, Poindext er t est ified t hat he cannot walk “ a long ways,” cannot sit “ very long,” can only bend forward “ a lit t le bit ,” and can neit her run nor j ump. See Transcript at 33-34. He t est ified t hat he cannot lift and carry more t han t went y pounds and cannot push and pull “ t hings like a grocery cart .” See Transcript at 34. He addit ionally t est ified t hat he can “ kind of kneel” and “ probably get down slow” but ot herwise cannot balance, climb, st oop, or crawl. Poindext er t est ified t hat a normal day consist s of eat ing breakfast so t hat he can t ake his medicat ion, going out side t o feed his chickens, walking around t o get “ a lit t le exercise,” calling his mot her and grandmot her, cooking his own food, and doing some simple household chores. See Transcript at 31-32. 3 Poindext er t est ified t hat he t akes ant i-inflammat ory medicat ion for his pain. See Transcript at 31. The aforement ioned evidence is unremarkable, and t he ALJ could and did so find. 3 Poindext er’ s girlfriend complet ed a t hird-part y funct ion report in which she at t est ed t o his rest rict ed daily act ivit ies. See Transcript at 166-175. -5- The ALJ could and did find t hat Poindext er is capable of performing t he st anding, walking, or sit t ing requirement s of light work. He repeat edly demonst rat ed a normal range of mot ion and was even encouraged t o exercise more. Alt hough he t est ified t hat he has walking and sit t ing rest rict ions, t he ALJ could and did discount t he t est imony. Poindext er cont ends t hat “ Hest er concluded ... it was Poindext er’ s physical pain, as opposed t o [his] ment al impairment s, ... keeping him from working[.]” See Document 11 at 4. The cent ral problem wit h t his cont ent ion is t hat Poindext er has mischaract erized Hest er’ s observat ion. Hest er’ s not e makes it clear t hat he was merely recorded Poindext er’ s charact erizat ion of his pain: “ report edly” Poindext er’ s physical pain keeping him from working. See Transcript at 372. The ALJ incorporat ed t he opinions of t he st at e agency physicians int o t he assessment of Poindext er’ s residual funct ional capacit y, and t he ALJ did not err in doing so. Alt hough t heir opinions are not ent it led t o great weight , t heir opinions are ent it led t o some weight . See Anderson v. Heckler, 738 F.2d 959 (8t h Cir. 1984) (consult ing physician’ s opinion given limit ed weight ). There is no evidence t he ALJ gave t heir opinions inappropriat e weight . Wit h respect t o t he ALJ’ s evaluat ion of Poindext er’ s subj ect ive complaint s, t he Court not es t hat t he ALJ is not required t o explicit ly discuss each Polaski v. Heckler fact or. See St rongson v. Barnhart , 361 F.3d 1066 (8t h Cir. 2004). “ It is sufficient if he acknowledges and considers t hose fact ors before discount ing a claimant ’ s subj ect ive complaint s.” See Id. at 1072. -6- The ALJ acknowledged t he Polaski v. Heckler fact ors and acknowledged his obligat ion t o evaluat e Poindext er’ s subj ect ive complaint s in light of t hose fact ors. See Transcript at 11-12. The ALJ considered t he medical evidence, and his considerat ion of it was not improper. He could and did find t hat it was unremarkable and did not support Poindext er’ s complaint s of disabling pain. Alt hough ost eoart hrit is, pancreat it is, and abdominal pain were diagnosed, t here is lit t le evidence t he impairment s give rise t o disabling pain. The Court is not persuaded t hat t he ALJ discount ed Poindext er’ s subj ect ive complaint s simply because t hey were inconsist ent wit h t he medical evidence. The ALJ considered t he non-medical evidence and could and did find t hat it t oo was unremarkable. The ALJ accurat ely summarized Poindext er’ s daily act ivit ies, not ing t he following: “ As for daily act ivit ies, t he claimant t est ified it depended on whet her he had slept well or not , but he fixed breakfast and at e, t ook medicat ion, fed chickens, exercised, called his grandmot her each day and t ried t o help wit h household chores.” See Transcript at 16. See also Transcript at 31-32, 178-183. The ALJ addit ionally not ed t hat Poindext er had a driver’ s license, lived wit h his sixt een-year-old son, and occasionally lived wit h his fift een-year-old daught er. See Transcript at 16. The ALJ also accurat ely summarized Poindext er’ s use of pain medicat ion, not ing t hat he t akes “ Mobic pain medicat ion” and over-t he-count er medicat ion. See Transcript at 16. The ALJ did not opine whet her t he medicat ion helps Poindext er’ s pain, and t he record is silent as t o whet her t he medicat ion helps his pain. -7- The ALJ gave lit t le ment ion t o t he ot her Polaski v. Heckler fact ors, e.g., durat ion, frequency, and int ensit y of pain; precipit at ing and aggravat ing fact ors; and funct ional rest rict ions, but he did not commit reversible error in doing so. 4 The evidence relevant t o t hose fact ors is minimal and does not support Poindext er’ s assert ion of disabling pain. It is t elling t hat he made lit t le ment ion of his pain while t est ifying during t he administ rat ive hearing. See Transcript at 28-37. The only real ment ion he made was t hat his arms are numb and burn, sympt oms he at t ribut ed t o “ pinched nerves.” See Transcript at 37. “ The ALJ is in t he best posit ion t o gauge t he credibilit y of t est imony and is grant ed deference in t hat regard.” See Est es v. Barnhart , 275 F.3d 722, 724 (8t h Cir. 2002). In t his inst ance, t he Court finds t hat Poindext er has not offered a legit imat e reason for deviat ing from t he aforement ioned rule. The ALJ’ s credibilit y analysis, while not exhaust ive, is not flawed, and his evaluat ion of t he evidence is one of t he accept able evaluat ions permit t ed by t he record. 5 4 Import ant ly, t he Eight h Circuit has rej ect ed t he not ion t hat t he ALJ must explicit ly discuss or make an express finding as t o each of t he Polaski fact ors. See Goff v. Barnhart , 421 F.3d 785, 791 (8t h Cir. 2005) (no error in ALJ’ s credibilit y analysis where ALJ made an express credibilit y finding and considered and discussed t he Polaski fact ors). St at ed different ly, an ALJ need not “ discuss each Polaski fact or in a met hodical fashion” where t hey are at least acknowledged and discussed before discount ing a claimant ’ s subj ect ive complaint s of pain. See Pelkey v. Barnhart , 433 F.3d 575, 577 (8t h Cir. 2006) (ALJ list ed Polaski fact ors, st at ed he had considered t hem, and concluded t hat t he obj ect ive medical evidence and record as a whole were inconsist ent wit h claimant ’ s subj ect ive complaint s). Even t he ALJ’ s failure t o cit e Polaski will not necessarily invalidat e t he ALJ’ s credibilit y analysis. See Schult z v. Ast rue, 479 F.3d 979, 983 (8t h Cir. 2007). 5 Two concluding point s are in order. First , t he Commissioner devot ed t hree pages of her brief t o addressing Poindext er’ s ment al impairment s and t heir impact on his residual funct ional capacit y. See Document 12 at 8-10. The Court is not convinced t hat Poindext er is challenging t he assessment made of his ment al residual funct ional capacit y; he is only challenging t he assessment made of his physical -8- It is not t he t ask of t his Court t o review t he evidence and make an independent decision. Neit her is it t o reverse t he decision of t he ALJ because t here is evidence in t he record which cont radict s his findings. The t est is whet her t here is subst ant ial evidence in t he record as a whole which support s t he decision of t he ALJ. See Vandenboom v. Barnhart , 421 F.3d 745, 749 (8t h Cir. 2005). The Court has reviewed t he ent ire record, including t he briefs, t he ALJ's decision, and t he t ranscript of t he hearing. The Court concludes t hat t he record as a whole cont ains ample evidence t hat a "reasonable mind would accept as adequat e t o support t he Commissioner's conclusion" in t his case. Perkins v. Ast rue, 648 F.3d 892, 897 (8t h Cir. 2011). The Court furt her concludes t hat t he ALJ's decision is not based on legal error. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED t hat t he final decision of t he Commissioner is affirmed and Plaint iff's Complaint is DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED t his 31st day of July, 2015. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE residual funct ional capacit y. To t he ext ent he is challenging t he assessment made of his ment al residual funct ional capacit y, t he Court concludes t hat it is support ed by subst ant ial evidence. The ALJ could and did credit t he opinions of Hest er and t he st at e agency psychologist s and find t hat Poindext er is capable of performing work t hat is simple, easily learned, and unskilled. Second, Poindext er maint ains t hat a flawed assessment of his residual funct ional capacit y was used as a basis for t he ALJ’ s hypot het ical quest ion t o a vocat ional expert . The Court cannot agree. Subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole support s t he ALJ’ s assessment of Poindext er’ s residual funct ional capacit y, and t he ALJ used t hat assessment in craft ing t he quest ion. See Transcript at 37-39. -9-
]]>
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.
