Gage v. Social Security Administration, No. 3:2016cv00344 - Document 14 (E.D. Ark. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER affirming the decision of the Commissioner. Gage's complaint is dismissed, all requested relief is denied, and judgment will be entered for the Commissioner. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris on 6/27/2017. (jak)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Gage v. Social Security Administration Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION LINDA S. GAGE PLAINTIFF v. NO. 3:16-cv-00344 PSH NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaint iff Linda S. Gage (“ Gage” ) began t he case at bar by filing a complaint pursuant t o 42 U.S.C. 405(g). In t he complaint , she challenged t he final decision of t he Act ing Commissioner of t he Social Securit y Administ rat ion (“ Commissioner” ), a decision based upon findings made by an Administ rat ive Law Judge (“ ALJ” ). Gage maint ains t hat t he ALJ’ s findings are not support ed by subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole and offers t wo reasons why. 1 Gage first maint ains t hat her impairment s meet or equal List ing 1.02, and t he ALJ erred at st ep t hree of t he sequent ial evaluat ion process when she failed t o so find. 2 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). 2 Gage maint ains t hat her impairment s meet or equal List ings 1.00B2b and 1.00B2c. 1.00B2b and 1.00B2c, t hough, are not list ings in t he convent ional sense. 1.00B2b defines, and provides examples of, what is meant by t he phrase “ inabilit y t o ambulat e effect ively.” 1.00B2c defines, and provides examples of, what is meant by t he phrase “ inabilit y t o perf orm fine and gross movement s effect ively.” Like t he Commissioner, t he Court believes Gage int ends t o allege t hat her impairment s meet or equal List ing 1.02. The Court will t herefore analyze her first assert ion of error pursuant t o List ing 1.02. 1 Dockets.Justia.com At st ep t hree, t he ALJ is required t o det ermine whet her a claimant ’ s impairment s meet or equal a list ed impairment . See Raney v. Barnhart , 396 F.3d 1007 (8t h Cir. 2005). The det erminat ion is solely a medical det erminat ion, see Cockerham v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 492 (8t h Cir. 1990), and t he claimant bears t he burden of showing t hat her impairment s meet or equal a list ed impairment , see Pyland v. Apfel, 149 F.3d 873 (8t h Cir. 1998). List ing 1.02 encompasses a maj or dysfunct ion of a j oint and is charact erized by “ gross anat omical deformit y ... and chronic j oint pain and st iffness wit h signs of limit at ion of mot ion or ot her abnormal mot ion of t he affect ed j oint (s) and findings on appropriat e medically accept able imaging of j oint space narrowing, bony dest ruct ion, or ankylosis of t he affect ed j oint (s).” See List ing 1.02. The list ing addit ionally requires t he involvement of one maj or peripheral weight -bearing j oint result ing in an inabilit y t o ambulat e effect ively as defined in 1.00B2b or t he involvement of one peripheral j oint in each upper ext remit y result ing in an inabilit y t o perform fine and gross movement s effect ively as defined in 1.00B2c. The inabilit y t o ambulat e effect ively means “ an ext reme limit at ion of t he abilit y t o walk.” See List ing 1.00B2b. It includes, but is not limit ed t o, such t hings as t he inabilit y t o walk wit hout t he use of a walker or t he inabilit y t o walk wit hout t he use of t wo crut ches or t wo canes. The inabilit y t o perform fine and gross movement s effect ively means “ an ext reme loss of funct ion of bot h upper ext remit ies.” See List ing 1.00B2c. It includes, but is not limit ed t o, such t hings as t he inabilit y t o prepare a simple meal and feed oneself and t he inabilit y t o t ake care of personal hygiene. 2 Gage alleges t hat she became disabled on December 1, 2013, as a result of impairment s t hat include back problems, diabet es, left arm pain, and feet problems. In her brief, she represent s t hat her ambulat ory limit at ion is caused by “ chronic back and heel pain.” See Docket Ent ry 11 at CM/ ECF 13. She also represent s in her brief t hat her upper ext remit y limit at ion is caused by “ an impingement of her left shoulder” and t he pain t he impingement causes in her neck, back, and shoulder. See Docket Ent ry 11 at CM/ ECF 7, 13. The medical evidence relevant t o Gage’ s ambulat ory and upper ext remit y impairment s reflect s t hat she has sought medical at t ent ion for her back pain at irregular int ervals. She underwent t est ing in January of 2010, and t he result s revealed, in part , t he following: “ [t ]he bony st ruct ures in t he T-spine show a lit t le bit of mild ost eoart hrit ic t ype changes.” See Transcript at 321. In March of 2013, she present ed t o a medical clinic complaining of back pain. See Transcript at 275-278. She represent ed t hat t he pain radiat ed along her right side. Her vit al signs were t aken and reflect ed, int er alia, t hat she was sixt y-four inches t all and weighed 174 pounds, or had a Body Mass Index (“ BMI” ) of 29.71. No j oint swelling or t enderness was not ed, and no spinal t enderness was not ed. A backache was assessed. In June of 2014, Gage was seen again for back pain. See Transcript at 494/ 507-509. She denied numbness and t ingling but report ed t hat t he pain was exacerbat ed by st anding and bending. She report ed pain upon lumbar flexion, ext ension, and rot at ion, and her lumbar spine was t ender t o palpat ion. Physical t herapy was recommended, as was a home exercise program t hat included st ret ching. She never complet ed t he t herapy program, t hough, because she was discharged from it because of her non-at t endance. 3 Gage has occasionally sought medical at t ent ion for leg pain and rest less leg syndrome. The record indicat es t hat she did so on at least t hree occasions prior t o June of 2014. See Transcript at 334, 332-333, 315-316. No significant findings were recorded. In June of 2014, she present ed t o a medical clinic complaining of leg pain. See Transcript at 510-513. Her vit al signs were t aken and reflect ed, int er alia, t hat she was sixt y-four inches t all and weighed 177 pounds, or had BMI of 30.38. A musculoskelet al examinat ion was abnormal. The assessment included a backache and diabet es mellit us. Medicat ion was prescribed. Gage was seen for depression in August of 2014. See Transcript at 452-453. The report from t hat examinat ion is not ewort hy because t he nurse pract it ioner not ed t hat Gage had pain in her calves when walking any dist ance. Gage has on occasion sought medical at t ent ion for heel pain. In Oct ober of 2007, she present ed t o a medical clinic complaining of a burning sensat ion in her feet . See Transcript at 323-324. It was at t ribut ed t o diabet ic neuropat hy, and she was prescribed medicat ion. She did not seek medical at t ent ion for her heel pain again unt il February of 2013. See Transcript at 282-284. No signif icant findings were recorded, but diabet es mellit us was again diagnosed. Gage has on occasion sought medical at t ent ion for pain and swelling in her right shoulder. In Sept ember of 2006, she present ed t o a medical clinic complaining of right shoulder pain. See Transcript at 339. A st rain/ spasm in her rhomboid muscles was assessed, and medicat ion was prescribed. She did not seek medical at t ent ion for her right shoulder again unt il Sept ember of 2014. See Transcript at 498-499. At t hat t ime, she exhibit ed a decreased range of mot ion in her shoulder and some t enderness but had no effusion or swelling. Joint pain was diagnosed. 4 Gage has also sought medical at t ent ion for pain in her left shoulder, and a left shoulder impingement has been not ed. See Transcript at 253. In Oct ober of 2012, she present ed t o a medical clinic complaining of pain in her left shoulder. See Transcript at 291-294. She report ed t hat a recent “ st eroid shot ” had helped, as did over-t hecount er ibuprofen. See Transcript at 291. A musculoskelet al examinat ion revealed j oint pain and st iffness but no j oint swelling. Joint pain and diabet es mellit us were assessed. Gage declined an x-ray and at t ribut ed t he pain t o “ j ust art hrit is and working.” See Transcript at 294. Mobic was prescribed. In February of 2013 and again in March of 2013, Gage present ed t o a medical clinic complaining of left shoulder pain. See Transcript at 282-284, 390-392. No j oint swelling or t enderness was not ed in February of 2013, but j oint pain localized in her left shoulder was assessed. In March of 2013, t he at t ending physician recorded Gage’ s report t hat “ [h]er pain radiat es down t o t he elbow at t imes” and her pain “ increased wit h overhead act ivit y, behind t he back act ivit ies, and when she sleeps on her left side.” See Transcript at 391. Gage was observed t o have a decreased range of mot ion in her left shoulder. A t reat ment plan included t herapy and a home exercise program t hat included st ret ching and st rengt hening exercises. In February and March of 2014, Dr. James Ameika, M.D., (“ Ameika” ) saw Gage in connect ion wit h medical imaging t est ing and t o discuss t he occulsion, or blockage, he found in her right and left int ernal carot id art eries. See Transcript at 356-359, 363367. The findings cont ained in his report s are relevant t o her ambulat ory and upper ext remit y impairment s in t he following four respect s. First , he observed t hat she had “ no weakness involving eit her of her upper or lower ext remit ies.” See Transcript at 5 356. Second, a musculoskelet al examinat ion revealed no evidence of art hralgia, j oint pain, j oint swelling, limb pain, or limb swelling. Third, an examinat ion of her ext remit ies revealed t he following: “ pedal pulses are wit hin normal limit s, ... no clubbing, edema was not present , showed no cyanosis, cellulit is was not present , ...” See Transcript at 359. Fourt h, a neurological examinat ion revealed, int er alia, t hat she had no difficult y walking but had a normal gait . At st ep t hree, t he ALJ considered whet her Gage’ s impairment s meet or equal several of t he list ings. The ALJ specifically considered whet her Gage’ s impairment s meet or equal List ing 1.02. The ALJ found t hat t hey do not meet t he list ing because “ t he available medical evidence did not demonst rat e t he specified crit eria required of t he list ing.” See Transcript at 15. In so finding, t he ALJ observed t hat “ t he evidence does not demonst rat e t hat t he claimant has t he degree of difficult y in performing fine and gross movement s as defined in 1.00B2c.” See Transcript at 15. The ALJ made no observat ion wit h regard t o whet her Gage’ s impairment s give rise t o an inabilit y t o ambulat e effect ively as required by 1.00B2b. In considering whet her Gage’ s impairment s meet or equal List ing 1.04, t hough, t he ALJ observed t hat “ t here is no evidence ... [his] back disorder result [s] in an inabilit y t o ambulat e effect ively ...” See Transcript at 15. 3 Subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole support s t he ALJ’ s finding at st ep t hree because Gage has failed t o produce medical evidence t hat her impairment s meet or equal List ing 1.02. The Court so finds for t wo reasons. Listing 1.04 encompasses disorders of the spine and requires evidence of “nerve root compression, spinal arachnoiditis or lumbar spinal stenosis.” See Transcript at 15. The ALJ found that Gage’s impairments did not meet or equal Listing 1.04. 3 6 First , t here is no medical evidence t hat Gage’ s impairment s result in an inabilit y t o ambulat e effect ively, i.e., she has “ an ext reme limit at ion of t he abilit y t o walk.” It is t rue t hat she has a hist ory of back, leg, and heel problems, and t est ing has revealed “ mild ost eoart hrit ic t ype changes” in her t horacic spine. See Transcript at 321. Her back problems, t hough, were charact erized as a backache, and t here is no medical evidence her problems impair her abilit y t o walk or ot herwise require t he use of an assist ive device. Ameika observed t hat Gage had no weakness in eit her of her lower ext remit ies and observed t hat she had no difficult y walking but had a normal gait . On more t han one occasion, home exercises were recommended. Gage t est ified during t he administ rat ive hearing t hat she falls at least t hree t imes a week, see Transcript at 43, but she has offered no medical evidence t o subst ant iat e her t est imony. Second, t here is no medical evidence t hat Gage’ s impairment s result in an inabilit y t o perform fine and gross movement s effect ively. Admit t edly, she has a hist ory of shoulder pain and has a hist ory of a left shoulder impingement . She also has, at t imes, exhibit ed a reduced range of mot ion in her left shoulder. Nevert heless, her shoulder impairment does not give rise t o “ an ext reme loss of funct ion of bot h upper ext remit ies.” Ameika observed t hat Gage had no weakness in eit her of her upper ext remit ies, and he could find no evidence of j oint swelling or limb swelling. On more t han one occasion, home exercises were recommended, part of which involved st ret ching and st rengt hening exercises. Gage also represent ed in a series of disabilit y document s t hat she can at t end t o her personal care, see Transcript at 220, and she t est ified during t he administ rat ive hearing t hat she is able t o clean her house, do laundry, and cook, see Transcript at 39. 7 Gage offers a second reason why t he ALJ’ s findings are not support ed by subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole. Gage maint ains t hat her residual funct ional capacit y was not properly assessed because she is unable t o perform light work as t he ALJ found. 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). The assessment is made using all of t he relevant evidence in t he record, but t he assessment 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 is required t o evaluat e t he claimant ’ s subj ect ive complaint s. See Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211 (8t h Cir. 2001). The ALJ does so by considering t he medical evidence and evidence of t he claimant 's daily act ivit ies; t he durat ion, frequency, and int ensit y of her pain; t he dosage and effect iveness of medicat ion; any precipit at ing and aggravat ing fact ors; and any funct ional rest rict ions. The medical evidence relevant t o Gage’ s impairment s reflect s t hat she has a hist ory of depressive sympt oms and has t aken medicat ion for t hem. 4 In June of 2014, she was seen by Dr. Cat herine Hubbard Adams, Ph.D., (“ Adams” ) for a ment al diagnost ic evaluat ion. See Transcript at 427-432. Gage report ed t hat she want ed t o sleep all t he t ime and was having night mares every ot her night . Gage was dressed appropriat ely, her predominant mood was nervous, and her affect was appropriat e. Adams diagnosed a generalized anxiet y disorder and made t he following findings wit h respect t o Gage’ s adapt ive funct ioning: 4 The Court will not repeat the summary of Gage’s shoulder, back, leg, and heel problems. 8 How do ment al impairment s int erfere wit h t his person’ s day t o day adapt ive funct ioning? ... Claimant ’ s difficult ies do not seem t o int erfere wit h age-appropriat e ADLs [i.e., act ivit ies of daily living]. Some of her ADLs, such as driving, are limit ed, but t his seems due t o physical ailment s and not cognit ive or ment al challenges. Capacit y t o communicat e and int eract in a socially adequat e manner? ... Claimant ’ s int eract ions during int erview were appropriat e. Capacit y t o communicat e in an int elligible and effect ive manner? Claimant communicat ed in a manner t hat was effect ive and int elligible. Capacit y t o cope wit h t he t ypical ment al/ cognit ive demands of basic work-like t asks? Claimant seems t o have difficult y coping wit h workt ype demands. [She] seems t o st ruggle wit h t urning in assignment s and maint aining focus t o st ay on t asks. Abilit y t o at t end and sust ain concent rat ion on basic t asks? The claimant seems t o have difficult y at t ending and sust aining concent rat ion on basic t asks. Her performance t oday indicat es limit ed working memory. This limit at ion does not seem due t o anxiet y, but is pot ent ially relat ed t o diabet es or previous seizure hist ory. Capacit y t o sust ain persist ence in complet ing t asks? It seems claimant has lit t le difficult y sust aining persist ence in complet ing work t asks. Capacit y t o complet e work-like t asks wit hin an accept able t imeframe? Claimant seems t o have lit t le difficult y complet ing t asks wit hin an accept able t imeframe. See Transcript at 430-431. Adams opined t hat Gage was capable of managing her finances wit hout assist ance. Adams found no evidence of malingering. Gage was seen for her depressive sympt oms on at least t wo subsequent occasions. See Transcript at 493/ 504-506, 452-453. On each occasion, she was awake, alert , and orient ed t o person, place, and t ime. No remarkable findings were not ed, but she was diagnosed wit h depression and anxiet y. Medicat ion was prescribed for her sympt oms. 9 Gage has a hist ory of small vessel ischemic disease. See Transcript at 356-359, 363-367. Test ing revealed t hat she has one hundred percent “ occulusions of bot h t he right and left int ernal carot id art eries,” but Ameika opined t hat t here was “ not hing surgical t o be done ..., see Transcript at 356. He not ed no evidence of st roke or st rokelike sympt oms. See Transcript at 366. He encouraged her t o work “ very hard on her risk fact ors including t he need t o st op smoking and maint ain well cont rolled blood pressure and cholest erol levels.” See Transcript at 356. Gage has a hist ory of obesit y and diabet es mellit us. Her BMI has rout inely been in t he t went y-nine t o t hirt y range, which places her in t he obese range. She t akes insulin for her diabet es mellit us and checks her blood sugar regularly. Gage also has a hist ory of right eye problems apparent ly associat ed wit h diabet es mellit us and has sought frequent t reat ment for her eye problems. See Transcript at 264-267 (10/ 29/ 2013), 257-259 (01/ 22/ 2014), 253-256/ 447 (01/ 28/ 2014), 444-446 (02/ 04/ 2014), 349-351 (02/ 18/ 2014), 347-348 (02/ 25/ 2014), 443 (03/ 05/ 2014), 345 (03/ 18/ 2014), 344 (04/ 18/ 2014), 442 (04/ 16/ 2014), 411 (07/ 14/ 2014). The problem caused, int er alia, blurred vision, pain, redness, and light sensit ivit y. She was prescribed medicat ion, an oint ment , and given an inj ect ion t o t reat her sympt oms, but t he t reat ment provided only t emporary relief. She was event ually diagnosed wit h rubeosis of t he right eye. 5 The record reflects that Gage also has a history of seizures, epilepsy and hearing problems. The Court will not devote much attention to those impairments, save to note the following. The medical evidence pertaining to her seizure disorder is minimal. Although she takes seizure medication, she testified during the administrative hearing that she has not had a seizure in three or four years. See Transcript at 43. The medical evidence pertaining to her epilepsy is equally minimal. It is included as a diagnosis on some of the progress notes, see Transcript at 478, but the impact of the impairment on her residual functional capacity is not clear. Gage has been diagnosed with otitis media, or an inflammation of the middle ear, see Transcript at 478, and has been prescribed medication. She subsequently reported that the medication provided little relief, and her hearing problems persisted. 5 10 Gage’ s medical records were reviewed by st at e agency medical professionals. See Transcript at 63-77, 80-96. They opined t hat Gage is capable of performing a reduced range of light work. A summary of t he non-medical evidence indicat es t hat Gage worked bet ween t he years 1993 and 2012. A summary of her FICA earnings reflect s t hat alt hough her earnings during t hat period were modest , her work was most ly regular. See Transcript at 164. Gage complet ed a series of document s in connect ion wit h her applicat ion for disabilit y insurance benefit s. See Transcript at 217-218, 219-226. In t he document s, she represent ed t hat she experiences pain in her back and legs on a daily basis. She cannot st and or walk for long periods of t ime and begins t o experience pain aft er only about t en minut es. She also has problems wit h her right eye. Her impairment s affect her abilit y t o lift , st and, walk, climb st airs, kneel, squat , reach, see, bend, remember, and complet e t asks. She helps t ake care of her spouse and is capable of at t ending t o her own personal care, preparing meals, cleaning, doing laundry, and driving an aut omobile, alt hough she does not do so because of her poor vision. She shops and can pay her bills. She can follow writ t en inst ruct ions “ semi-well” and follow spoken inst ruct ions “ well.” See Transcript at 224. Gage t est ified during t he administ rat ive hearing. See Transcript at 34-54. She was born on March 19, 1962, and was fift y-t hree years old at t he t ime of t he hearing. She complet ed t he elevent h grade in school but did not graduat e. She smokes a pack of cigaret t es a day. She spends her day cleaning her house and doing laundry but must t ake frequent breaks. She is unable t o perf orm any out door act ivit ies. Gage must spend 11 t wo hours a day rest ing. Her inabilit y t o st and and her anxiet y prevent her from working. She t akes five shot a day for her diabet es mellit us. She has had seizures in t he past , but she has not had one in t hree or four years. She can be around people but does not enj oy it . She falls at least t hree t imes a week but does not know why she falls. She has t rouble seeing out of her right eye, and eyeglasses do not help her vision. The ALJ found at st ep t wo t hat Gage has severe impairment s in t he form of “ diabet es mellit us, small vessel ischemic disease, hist ory of epilepsy, right shoulder j oint pain, lower back pain, 100 percent occlusion of bot h t he right and left carot id art eries, right eye vision loss, bilat eral hearing loss wit h ot it is media, obesit y, depression, and generalized anxiet y disorder.” See Transcript at 14. The ALJ assessed Gage’ s residual funct ional capacit y and found t hat she can perform light work wit h t he following limit at ions: “ t he claimant must avoid moderat e exposure t o hazards, is limit ed t o work where monocular vision is permit t ed, can occasionally reach overhead, and is limit ed t o simple and rout ine work wit h simple inst ruct ions.” See Transcript at 17. The ALJ found at st ep four t hat Gage cannot ret urn t o her past relevant work but found at st ep five t hat t here is ot her work she can perform. The ALJ t herefore concluded t hat Gage was not disabled for purposes of t he Social Securit y Act . Gage has limit at ions caused by various impairment s. The quest ion for t he ALJ was t he ext ent t o which t hey impact t he most Gage can do. The ALJ incorporat ed limit at ions for t he impairment s int o t he assessment of Gage’ s residual funct ional capacit y but found she was not disabled. The ALJ could find as he did as subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole support s his considerat ion of t he evidence and his assessment of her residual funct ional capacit y. The Court so finds for several reasons. 12 First , t he ALJ adequat ely considered t he medical evidence relevant t o Gage’ s ment al impairment s. The ALJ could and did credit Adams’ opinions t hat Gage can perform most act ivit ies of daily living; can communicat e and int eract in a socially adequat e, effect ive, and int elligible manner; has lit t le difficult y sust aining persist ence in complet ing work t asks; and seems t o have lit t le difficult y complet ing t asks wit hin an accept able t imeframe. Adams also opined, t hough, t hat Gage “ seems t o have difficult y coping wit h work-t ype demands,” “ seems t o st ruggle wit h t urning in assignment s and maint aining focus t o st ay on t asks,” and “ seems t o have difficult y at t ending and sust aining concent rat ion on basic t asks.” See Transcript at 430. The ALJ could and did also credit t he st at e agency medical professionals who opined t hat Gage is limit ed t o unskilled work. The ALJ account ed for t he abovement ioned limit at ions in craft ing Gage’ s residual funct ional capacit y because he limit ed her t o “ simple and rout ine work wit h simple inst ruct ions.” See Transcript at 17. Second, t he ALJ adequat ely considered t he non-medical evidence relevant t o Gage’ s ment al impairment s. Gage represent ed in her disabilit y document s t hat she can follow writ t en inst ruct ions “ semi-well” and follow spoken inst ruct ions “ well.” See Transcript at 224. It is t rue t hat Gage prefers t o be alone, but , as t he ALJ could and did not e, “ [Gage] t est ified she visit s wit h friends and family on a weekly basis.” See Transcript at 21. The ALJ not ed during t he administ rat ive hearing t hat Gage had worked around people for approximat ely fift een years but was now maint aining she could not be around people. When asked what brought about t he change, Gage t est ified as follows: “ I’ m not saying I’ m not able t o be around people. I, I j ust — — ’ s not t he same it it as it was like five years ago.” See Transcript at 41. 13 Third, t he ALJ adequat ely considered t he medical evidence relevant t o Gage’ s physical impairment s. The ALJ could and did find t hat Gage has limit at ions caused by eye problems and shoulder pain and incorporat ed t hose limit at ions int o t he assessment of her residual funct ional capacit y. Specifically, t he ALJ found, int er alia, t hat Gage is limit ed t o work where monocular vision is permit t ed and can only occasionally reach overhead. 6 Alt hough Gage’ s diabet es mellit us and obesit y give rise t o work-relat ed limit at ions, t hey do not give rise t o such severe limit at ions t hat she is prevent ed from performing light work. She was repeat edly found t o have no j oint swelling, no t enderness, no spinal t enderness, a normal gait , normal neurological and mot or examinat ions, and normal st rengt h. At t imes, she exhibit ed a reduced range of mot ion. When Ameika saw Gage in February of 2014 and again in March of 2014, t hough, he observed t hat she had no weakness in eit her of her upper or lower ext remit ies and had no difficult y walking. Fourt h, t he ALJ adequat ely considered t he non-medical evidence relevant t o Gage’ s physical impairment s. Specifically, t he ALJ considered and credit ed t hat Gage is capable of performing most of her daily act ivit ies, act ivit ies t hat include at t ending t o her own personal care, preparing meals, and cooking. The ALJ repeat edly not ed Gage’ s use of medicat ion and t he fact t hat it provided only t emporary relief for her sympt oms. The ALJ could and did also not e t hat Gage has ignored t he repeat ed advice of her medical professionals t o st op smoking. The ALJ not ed t hat smoking “ negat ively affect [s] [Gage’ s] carot id art eries” and her “ eye condit ion.” See Transcript at 21. It appears that the ALJ also accounted for Gage’s history of seizures when he found that she must avoid moderate exposure to hazards. 6 14 Gage appears t o challenge t he finding t hat she can perform light work, not ing t hat light work requires t he abilit y t o st and and walk for up t o six hours in an eight hour workday. The ALJ could, t hough, find as she did. The findings wit h respect t o Gage’ s abilit y t o st and and walk are unremarkable as she was repeat edly observed t o have no j oint swelling, no t enderness, no spinal t enderness, a normal gait , normal neurological and mot or examinat ions, and normal st rengt h. 7 The governing st andard in t his case, i.e., subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole, allows for t he possibilit y of drawing t wo inconsist ent conclusions. See Culbert son v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 934 (8t h Cir. 1994). In t his inst ance, t he ALJ’ s assessment of Gage’ s residual funct ional capacit y was not improper, and t he ALJ could find as she did. On t he basis of t he foregoing, t he Court finds t hat t here is subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole t o support t he ALJ’ s findings. Gage’ s complaint is dismissed, all request ed relief is denied, and j udgment will be ent ered for t he Commissioner. IT IS SO ORDERED t his 27t h day of June, 2017. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Gage also appears to challenge a hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert. See Docket Entry 11 at CM/ECF 14 15. There is no merit to Gage’s assertion. 7 15
]]>
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.
