Titsworth v. Social Security Administration, No. 4:2009cv00882 - Document 13 (E.D. Ark. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER reversing and remanding the Commissioner's decision. This is a "sentence four" remand. Signed by Magistrate Judge H. David Young on 12/7/2010. (lej)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Titsworth v. Social Security Administration Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION KELLY L. TITSWORTH PLAINTIFF v. NO. 4:09CV00882 HDY MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of t he Social Securit y Administ rat ion DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER BACKGROUND. Plaint iff Kelly L. Tit swort h (“ Tit swort h” ) began her at t empt t o obt ain benefit s by filing applicat ions for disabilit y insurance benefit s and supplement al securit y income benefit s pursuant t o t he provisions of t he Social Securit y Act (“ Act ” ). Her applicat ions were denied init ially and upon reconsiderat ion. She 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 Tit swort h. She 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” ). Tit swort h t hereaft er commenced t his proceeding by filing a complaint pursuant t o 42 U.S.C. 405(g). In t he complaint , she 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, he found t hat Tit swort h has not engaged in subst ant ial gainful act ivit y since t he alleged onset dat e. At st ep t wo, he found t hat she has t he following severe impairment s: degenerat ive disk disease and obesit y. At st ep t hree, he found t hat she does not have an impairment or combinat ion of impairment s list ed in, or medically equal t o, t he governing regulat ions. The ALJ t hen assessed Tit swort h’ s residual funct ional capacit y and found t hat she is capable of performing sedent ary work wit h some limit at ions. 1 At st ep four, he found t hat she is unable t o perform her past relevant work as a hand packager, sanit at ion worker, and inspect or and hand packager of plast ic product s. At st ep five, he found t hat her residual funct ional capacit y, age, educat ion, work experience, and t he t est imony of a vocat ional expert are such t hat t here are j obs in t he nat ional economy t hat Tit swort h can perform. Accordingly, t he ALJ concluded t hat she is not disabled wit hin t he meaning of t he Act . 1 Wit h regard t o t hose limit at ions, t he ALJ found t hat Tit swort h can “ occasionally lift and carry 10 pounds and frequent ly lift and carry less t han 10 pounds; sit for six hours and st and and walk for t wo hours; frequent ly kneel and crawl; and occasionally climb, balance, st oop, and crouch.” See Transcript at 46. -2- TITSWORTH’ S SUBJECTIVE COMPLAINTS. Are t he ALJ’ s findings support ed by subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole? Tit swort h t hinks not and advances a number of reasons why, only one of which has merit . She maint ains t hat t he ALJ failed t o properly adj udge her credibilit y regarding her subj ect ive complaint s. For t he reasons t hat follow, t he Court agrees. In Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1217-1218 (8t h Cir. 2001), t he Court of Appeals provided t he following guidance in properly evaluat ing a claimant ’ s subj ect ive complaint s: ... Before det ermining a claimant ’ s [residual funct ional capacit y], t he ALJ first must evaluat e t he claimant ’ s credibilit y. In evaluat ing subj ect ive complaint s, t he ALJ must consider, in addit ion t o obj ect ive medical evidence, any evidence relat ing t o: a claimant 's daily act ivit ies; [t he] durat ion, frequency and int ensit y of pain; [t he] dosage and effect iveness of medicat ion; precipit at ing and aggravat ing fact ors; and funct ional rest rict ions. See Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8t h Cir.1984). Subj ect ive complaint s may be discount ed if t here are inconsist encies in t he evidence as a whole. Id. at 1322. ... The credibilit y of a claimant 's subj ect ive t est imony is primarily for t he ALJ t o decide, not t he court s. ... Alt hough t he ALJ is not obligat ed t o explicit ly discuss each Polaski v. Heckler fact or but need only “ acknowledge and consider t hose fact ors before discount ing a claimant ’ s subj ect ive complaint s,” t he ALJ must make “ express credibilit y det erminat ions and set fort h t he inconsist encies in t he record t hat cause him t o rej ect t he claimant ’ s complaint s.” See Eichelberger v. Barnhart , 390 F.3d 584, 590 (8t h Cir. 2004). -3- The ALJ’ s findings as t o Tit swort h’ s subj ect ive complaint s were scant . He not ed t he represent at ions she made t o a nurse pract it ioner in a residual funct ional capacit y report , see Transcript at 47; not ed Tit swort h’ s st at ement s t hat she “ [can] not carry a clot hes basket , [can] not st and t o wash dishes, and [can] not bend and squat ,” see Id.; and found t he following: Aft er careful considerat ion of t he evidence, t he undersigned finds t hat [Tit swort h’ s] medically det erminable impairment s could reasonably be expect ed t o cause t he alleged sympt oms; however, [her] st at ement s concerning t he int ensit y, persist ence and limit ing effect s of t hese sympt oms are not credible t o t he ext ent t hey are inconsist ent wit h t he above residual funct ional capacit y assessment . See Transcript at 46. In evaluat ing Tit swort h’ s subj ect ive complaint s, t he ALJ never cit ed Polaski v. Heckler. His failure t o do so is not fat al, t hough. He inst ead cit ed Social Securit y Ruling 96-7p, which t racks Polaski v. Heckler. What is fat al, t hough, is t hat t he ALJ’ s analysis of t he relevant fact ors is deficient and not support ed by subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole. The ALJ found t hat Tit swort h is severely impaired as a result of, int er alia, degenerat ive disk disease. His finding is support ed by subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole as it cont ains several references t o t he impairment . The record also cont ains several references t o back pain, pain possibly associat ed wit h t he impairment . Thus, t here is medical evidence of an impairment t hat possibly causes her pain. -4- Tit swort h provided evidence prior t o, and during, t he administ rat ive hearing as t o t he rest rict ions of her daily act ivit ies caused by her pain. See Transcript at 19-24, 142149. The ALJ made scant ment ion of t hose act ivit ies. She provided evidence of t he durat ion, frequency, and int ensit y of her pain. See Transcript at 15-16, 18, 132-133. He failed t o make any ment ion of t hose mat t ers. Tit swort h provided evidence of t he dosage, effect iveness, and side effect s of her medicat ion. See Transcript at 14-16, 156. 171. He failed t o make any ment ion of t hose mat t ers. He also made no ment ion of any precipit at ing and aggravat ed fact ors or funct ional rest rict ions. For t he foregoing reasons, t he Court finds t hat t he ALJ failed t o make express credibilit y det erminat ions and set fort h t he inconsist encies in t he record t hat caused him t o discount Tit swort h’ s subj ect ive complaint s. The Court can only guess as t o t he basis for his finding t hat her subj ect ive complaint s were not credible. CONCLUSION. The ALJ’ s findings on t he issue of Tit swort h’ s credibilit y as t o her subj ect ive complaint s is not support ed by subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole, and a remand is warrant ed. A proper evaluat ion of her credibilit y is essent ial, part icularly in t his t ype of case as it primarily involves pain possibly associat ed wit h an undeniable impairment , i.e., degenerat ive disk disease. The ALJ is direct ed t o more fully develop t he record wit h regard t o her subj ect ive complaint s. His decision is reversed and 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). -5- IT IS SO ORDERED t his 7 day of December, 2010. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE -6-
]]>
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.
