Bloom v. Social Security Administration, No. 4:2019cv00928 - Document 15 (E.D. Ark. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: On the basis of the foregoing, the Court finds that there is substantial evidence on the record as a whole to support the ALJ's findings. Bloom'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 10/22/2020. (ajt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bloom v. Social Security Administration Doc. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION ALBERT BROWN BLOOM v. PLAINTIFF NO. 4:19-cv-00928 PSH ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION. In t his case, plaint iff Albert Brown Bloom (“ Bloom” ) maint ains t hat t he findings of an Administ rat ive Law Judge (“ ALJ” ) are not support ed by subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole. 1 Bloom so maint ains for what appears t o be t he following four reasons: 1) his ment al impairment s and disorder of t he spine meet or equal list ed impairment s, and t he ALJ erred when he failed t o so find at st ep t hree of t he sequent ial 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 and not based on any legal error.” See Sloan v. Saul, 933 F.3d 946, 949 (8t h Cir. 2019). “ Subst ant ial evidence is less t han a preponderance, but enough t hat a reasonable mind would accept it as adequat e t o support t he [ALJ’ s] conclusion.” See Id. “ Legal error may be an error of procedure, t he use of erroneous legal st andards, or an incorrect applicat ion of t he law.” See Lucus v. Saul, 960 F.3d 1066, 1068 (8t h Cir. 2020) [quot ing Collins v. Ast rue, 648 F.3d 869, 871 (8t h Cir. 2011) (cit at ions omit t ed)]. 1 Dockets.Justia.com evaluat ion process; 2) Bloom’ s residual funct ional capacit y was erroneously assessed because his impairment s were not adequat ely evaluat ed and because t he ALJ made a flawed credibilit y det erminat ion; 3) t he record was not fully developed wit h respect t o Bloom’ s residual funct ional capacit y; and 4) t he ALJ relied upon t he answer t o an improperly phrased hypot het ical quest ion at st ep five. EVIDENCE. 2 Bloom was fort y-t hree years old on January 28, 2018, i.e., t he day he allegedly became disabled. He alleged in his applicat ion for disabilit y insurance benefit s t hat he is disabled as a result of mult iple impairment s, t he primary ones appearing t o be ment al impairment s in t he form of depression, anxiet y, and post -t raumat ic st ress disorder (“ PTSD” ) and a physical impairment in t he form of a back disorder. Bloom served in t he milit ary from 1992 unt il 1996 and again from 2001 unt il 2018. See Transcript at 34. During a 2004 deployment , he experienced t wo “ serious event s.” See Transcript at 771. The first event occurred when a roadside improvised explosive device exploded near his The record in t his case is not a model of clarit y, and Bloom’ s recit al of t he medical evidence alone is roughly t hirt y-four pages long. As a result , t he Court has had some difficult y summarizing t he relevant port ions of t he medical evidence in a concise, chronological manner. Moreover, t he record appears t o be incomplet e as cert ain port ions of his t reat ment hist ory, e.g., some of t he progress not es from his chiropract ic and ment al healt h t reat ment s, are not included. The summary of t he evidence t hat follows is not exhaust ive but is adequat e t o provide a cont ext for addressing whet her t he ALJ’ s decision is support ed by subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole. 2 2 Humvee. He was sit t ing in t he driver’ s seat wit h t he door open, and t he blast wave forced t he door t o close, hit t ing his left leg. The second event occurred when t he Aust ralian Embassy was bombed, and he was about t wo hundred feet from t he explosion. I. MENTAL IMPAIRMENTS. Bloom has st ruggled wit h depression, anxiet y, and PTSD for several years. On April 3, 2017, he was admit t ed t o a Vet erans Affairs (“ VA” ) hospit al for suicidal ideat ions. See Transcript at 407-414. He report ed psychosocial st ressors, his j ob, and chronic back pain as t he reasons for his ideat ions. When he was discharged t wo days lat er, his condit ion was st able. He was cont inued on medicat ion t hat included mirt azapine, and an evaluat ion at a PTSD clinic was recommended. On April 5, 2017, Bloom was evaluat ed by a social worker. See Transcript at 713-718. The evaluat ion report includes t he following not e: ... [Bloom] report ed t oday t hat t his [i.e., t he April 3, 2017, hospit alizat ion] was an isolat ed incident st at ing t hat he had a “ bad” react ion t o pain medicat ion and denied having experienced prior [suicidal ideat ions] in t he past . [He] did report ongoing sympt oms of depressed mood, anxiet y, fat igue, poor sleep, chronic back pain ... hypervigilance, being easily st art led, and t rauma night mares [which] have all been occurring since a report ed t rauma exposure during deployment . [Bloom] not ed t hat he is current ly receiving psychiat ric care at t he VA for post t raumat ic sympt oms which has been confirmed by t his provider. [He] denied current t hought s of suicide, homicide, or self-harming behaviors. ... 3 See Transcript at 713. Bloom t hereaft er sought t herapy for his complaint s of depression and anxiet y. See Transcript at 696-699 (04/ 13/ 2017), 679682 (04/ 21/ 2017), 662-666 (04/ 28/ 2017), 649-653 (05/ 05/ 2017). The progress not es reflect t hat Bloom’ s condit ion improved as he ret urned t o “ normal life wit h his regular rout ines,” see Transcript at 696, and at t ended PTSD group meet ings. He denied any suicidal or homicidal ideat ions, had no t hought s of self-harm, and ident ified “ mult iple prot ect ive fact ors he ha[d] in place t o prevent crisis sit uat ions.” See Transcript at 696. On November 13, 2017, Bloom was admit t ed t o Bapt ist Healt h Medical Cent er for depression and suicidal ideat ions. See Transcript at 310342. He ident ified his back pain as t he cause of his ment al healt h problems. He was st art ed on gabapent in and cont inued on, int er alia, Celexa and Remeron. His condit ion improved, and he was discharged t hree days lat er. Bloom t hereaft er saw a ment al healt h counselor. See Transcript at 591-596 (11/ 16/ 2017), 582-586 (11/ 22/ 2017), 568-571 (11/ 30/ 2017), 555559 (12/ 08/ 2017), 540-544 (12/ 14/ 2017), 525-529 (01/ 08/ 2018). By t he t ime of t he January 8, 2018, present at ion, Bloom’ s memory and overall cognit ion were int act , his t hought process was logical/ linear, and his at t ent ion, insight , and j udgment were wit hin normal limit s. The progress not e from t hat present at ion also includes t he following observat ion: 4 ... [Bloom] ret urned t oday t o cont inue addressing sympt oms causing impairment t o funct ioning. [He] not ed t hat he cont inues t o experience st abilit y of mood and st at ed t hat his medicat ions cont inue t o play a big part in his improvement . [He] not ed t hat he is working closely wit h his PCM ... t o ensure [Bloom’ s] medicat ions are closely managed as t his was an issue wit h previous decompensat ion. ... [He] feels at t his t ime he can st ep down t o quart erly visit s and denied t he need for ongoing t herapy. ... [He] denied [suicidal ideat ions/ homicidal ideat ions] or t hought s of self-harm. See Transcript at 525-526. On February 14, 2018, t he VA issued a Rat ing Decision for a disabilit y claim made by Bloom. See Transcript at 343-365. The VA awarded him benefit s on account of service connect ed impairment s t hat included what were ident ified as “ [PTSD], generalized anxiet y disorder, and maj or depressive disorder (also claimed as anxiet y and manic depressant disorder).” See Transcript at 347. The Decision ident ified t he evidence t he VA relied upon in making t he award, which included, int er alia, t he following: difficult y adapt ing t o st ressful circumst ances, difficult y adapt ing t o work, depressed mood, difficult y adapt ing t o a work-like set t ing, depression, and anxiet y. The Decision also not ed an “ [o]ccupat ional and social impairment wit h occasional decrease in work efficiency and int ermit t ent periods of inabilit y t o perform occupat ional t asks ...” See Transcript at 347. 5 On May 23, 2018, Bloom was seen by Dr. Florian Keplinger, M.D., (“ Keplinger” ) for a t raumat ic brain inj ury evaluat ion. See Transcript at 768-774, 784-786. The evaluat ion reflect s t hat Bloom complained of, int er alia, difficult ies concent rat ing, remembering, and making decision. Keplinger diagnosed a t raumat ic brain inj ury and opined t hat t he maj orit y of Bloom’ s current clinical sympt omat ology were relat ed t o ment al healt h concerns, a sleep disorder, and chronic pain. Keplinger’ s recommendat ions included neuropsychological t est ing. Somet ime in 2018, Bloom was apparent ly hospit alized for suicidal t hought s. See Transcript 1102. By January 4, 2019, he report ed feeling “ great overall” aft er his medicat ion was adj ust ed. See Transcript at 1102. II. PAIN. Bloom has also st ruggled wit h back pain. Test ing of his back during 2015 and 2016 revealed t he following: MRI t est ing of his lumbar spine revealed “ [m]ild L5-S1 spondylost enosis,” see Transcript at 1039, and x-rays of his cervical spine revealed “ [m]ild degenerat ive changes” wit h “ minimal spondylosis at C6-C7,” see Transcript at 509. MRI t est ing of his t horacic spine revealed areas of disc desiccat ion and a “ minimal annular bulge at T7-T8.” See Transcript at 1041. A lat er MRI of his cervical spine revealed some suggest ion of very mild right neuroforaminal narrowing at C3-C4 wit h mild facet art hropat hy. See Transcript at 1042. 6 On January 4, 2017, Bloom was seen at a milit ary facilit y for complaint s of pain in his neck, shoulders, and back. See Transcript at 507510. The summary of t he present at ion indicat es t hat he had t enderness on palpat ion at several point s in his neck and back and a limit ed range of mot ion in his cervical spine. He was t reat ed wit h medicat ion and dry needling t herapy. Throughout 2017, Bloom cont inued t o seek medical at t ent ion at milit ary facilit ies for his neck and back pain. 3 The progress not es reflect t hat his t reat ment included st eroid inj ect ions, muscle relaxers, and pain medicat ion. An MRI of his t horacic spine revealed a cent ral disc prot rusion at T7-T8 causing “ mass effect on t he vent ral t hecal sac,” but no significant canal narrowing or abnormal cord signal were observed. See Transcript at 454. An MRI of his lumbar spine revealed “ Grade 1 ret rolist hesis of L5 over S1” wit h a “ [d]isc ost eophyt e complex causing mild t o moderat e bilat eral neural foraminal region at L5-S1.” See Transcript at 456. An MRI of his cervical spine revealed “ [r]ight C3/ C4 facet j oint inflammat ion wit h It is difficult t o know how many t imes Bloom was seen as t he record is not clear. Not wit hst anding consult at ions t hat were done over t he t elephone, it appears t hat he was seen on mult iple occasions. See e.g., Transcript at 507-511 (01/ 04/ 2017), 511-513 (01/ 11/ 2017), 513-514 (01/ 23/ 2017), 514-520 (01/ 27/ 2017), 628-635 (05/ 26/ 2017), 618-622 (07/ 19/ 2017), 420-423 (10/ 17/ 2017), 394-401 (12/ 20/ 2017). 3 7 adj acent marrow and soft t issue edema.” See Transcript at 457-458. The severit y of his pain decreased, in part , because he changed his act ivit ies. On January 19, 2017, Bloom saw Dr. William Ackerman, M.D., (“ Ackerman” ) for complaint s of back pain. See Transcript at 1034-1038. Bloom described his pain as const ant , aggravat ed by act ivit y. A physical examinat ion revealed t hat he had a painful range of mot ion in his neck and back. Ackerman diagnosed, int er alia, degenerat ive disc disease of t he lower cervical spine at C5/ 6 and degenerat ive disc disease of t he lower lumbar spine at L4/ 5. Ackerman’ s recommendat ions included epidural st eroid inj ect ion t herapy and cont inued pharmacological management wit h medicat ions t hat included Tizanidine and Belbuca film, an opioid. Throughout 2017 and int o 2018, Bloom saw Ackerman on mult iple occasions for pain management . 4 The progress not es reflect t hat Bloom report ed const ant back pain aggravat ed by act ivit y but improved wit h medicat ion, heat , and rest . His gait and balance were normal, his st raight leg raises were negat ive, and he could t olerat e some exercise. He had a decreased range of mot ion in his lumbar spine, and t he pain was made See Transcript at 1031-1033 (01/ 27/ 2017), 1015 (02/ 16/ 2017), 1028-1030 (03/ 15/ 2017), 1025-1027 (06/ 15/ 2017), 1022-1024 (06/ 29/ 2017), 1019-1021 (07/ 20/ 2017), 1016-1018 (09/ 20/ 2017), 1012-1014 (05/ 25/ 2018), 1009-1011 (06/ 21/ 2018), 1006-1008 (07/ 19/ 2018), 1002-1004 (08/ 16/ 2018), 999-1001 (09/ 13/ 2018), 996-998 (10/ 17/ 2018). 4 8 worse wit h flexion. He received st eroid inj ect ions, came t o use a TENS unit and back brace, and was cont inued on pharmacologic management . On May 14, 2017, Bloom present ed t o t he Saline Memorial Hospit al complaining of pain in his neck and back. See Transcript at 261-265. He described t he pain as dull and moderat e in severit y. A physical examinat ion revealed “ [t ]enderness, midline t o t he upper back, midline t o t he lower back, paraspinal t o t he upper back, paraspinal t o t he lower back.” See Transcript at 264. Medicat ions t hat included Ket orolac were prescribed. On May 25, 2017, Bloom sought emergency room care at bot h Saline Memorial Hospit al and Bapt ist Healt h Medical Cent er for t ingling and numbness in his face and neck. See Transcript at 251-260, 300-309. He charact erized t he severit y of his sympt oms as moderat e. A physical examinat ion was unremarkable, and a CT scan was negat ive. His pot assium was believed t o be low, and he was t reat ed accordingly. On August 16, 2017, Bloom was seen at Arkansas Specialt y Ort hopaedics for an evaluat ion of his upper back pain. See Transcript at 982, 984-985. He described t he pain as a sharp, severe pain bet ween his shoulders, “ like a knife st abbing him.” See Transcript at 984. A physical examinat ion revealed a normal gait and st at ion, appropriat e range of mot ion of t he neck, and appropriat e and symmet ric st rengt h in his arms. 9 He had an appropriat e, non-painful range of mot ion in his shoulders. Bloom’ s medical t est ing was reviewed and not ed t o be as follows: I reviewed [Bloom’ s] x-rays of his t horacic spine which reveal[ed] mild degenerat ive changes. I reviewed t he MRI of his lumbar spine which again revealed mult ilevel mild degenerat ive changes. I reviewed t he cervical MRI which reveal[ed] disc bulging at C5-6 and C6-7. There is no root impingement or herniat ed disc. I reviewed t he MRI of his t horacic spine which reveal[ed] mild degenerat ive changes. Again I do not see any spinal st enosis herniat ed disc or nerve root impingement . See Transcript at 984-985. The progress not e reflect s t hat t here was “ absolut ely not hing on [Bloom’ s] image findings t o support [why] he has t his pain.” See Transcript at 985. Beginning on February 6, 2018, Bloom received approximat ely fort yt wo chiropract ic t reat ment s for his neck and back pain. See Transcript at 860-973. At t he first present at ion, he had a mild t o moderat e, yet painful, range of mot ion in his spine. Aft er a series of t reat ment s, he report ed t hat his condit ion was improving. See Transcript at 841. He was able t o ride a horse, see Transcript at 872, and had t ravelled t o Texas and back for a fishing compet it ion, see Transcript at 903. Bloom nevert heless cont inued t o complain of pain t hat was aggravat ed by movement and prolonged sit t ing. At t he last present at ion, he report ed t hat he cont inued t o have 10 significant back pain, not ing t hat he had aggravat ed his back while moving int o a new house and while part icipat ing in event s at his church. As t he Court has not ed, on February 14, 2018, t he VA issued a Rat ing Decision for a disabilit y claim made by Bloom. See Transcript at 343-365. The VA awarded him benefit s on account of impairment s t hat included what were ident ified as “ cervical spine art hrit is (claimed as cervical disc degenerat ion),” and “ lumbosacral st rain wit h lumbar spine art hrit is (claimed as j oint pain all over body).” See Transcript at 348, 350. He was awarded benefit s on t he basis of medical t est ing confirming art hrit is in his cervical and lumbar spines and physical examinat ions indicat ing a painful, limit ed range of mot ion in t he cervical and lumbar port ions of his spine. On March 2, 2018, or approximat ely one mont h aft er t he alleged onset dat e, Bloom was seen by Dr. Jennifer Ames, M.D., (“ Ames” ) t o est ablish care. See Transcript at 841-843. Bloom report ed t hat his PTSD and depression were well-cont rolled wit h medicat ion, not ing t hat he was t aking medicat ion for bot h impairment s. Wit h respect t o his back pain, he report ed “ several areas of concern including his lumbar spine and cervical spine wit h degenerat ive disc disease as well as [a] bulging disc in his lower back.” See Transcript at 841. Nevert heless, he report ed t hat his back pain was cont rolled wit h gabapent in and diclofenac such t hat he could funct ion 11 and st ay act ive, and he want ed t o avoid opioid medicat ions. A physical examinat ion was unremarkable, and he was cont inued on medicat ion. Bloom t hereaft er saw Ames on several occasions t hroughout 2018 and 2019. See Transcript at 837-840 (05/ 18/ 2018), 832-834 (07/ 20/ 2018), 1105-1106 (10/ 02/ 2018), 1102-1104 (01/ 04/ 2019), 1100-1101 (04/ 05/ 2019), 1095-1096 (05/ 29/ 2019). The progress not es reflect t hat t he severit y of Bloom’ s back pain fluct uat ed. At t imes, he report ed worsening pain caused, in part , by an ATV accident . At ot her t imes, he report ed t hat his pain was much bet t er cont rolled aft er his medicat ion was adj ust ed and he received radiofrequency ablat ions. He also complained of memory loss, and she recommended neuropsychiat ric t est ing. The physical examinat ions performed during t he period were largely unremarkable. Ames made not e of Bloom’ s ment al healt h, not ing t hat it s severit y also fluct uat ed. At t imes, he report ed feeling well; at ot her t imes, he report ed increased anxiet y caused by “ family and social st ressors.” See Transcript at 832. Throughout 2018, Bloom also cont inued t o seek t reat ment at VA facilit ies for his neck and back pain. See Transcript at 792-798 (05/ 08/ 2018); 768-774, 784-792 (05/ 23/ 2018), 780-784 (06/ 14/ 2018), 777780 (06/ 29/ 2018), 854-858 (07/ 20/ 2018). The progress not es reflect t hat he cont inued t o experience pain in his neck and back and began t o have 12 difficult y walking. He nevert heless was occasionally observed t o have a full range of mot ion and full st rengt h in his cervical and lumbar spines. On August 1, 2018, Bloom saw Dr. Wayne Bruffet t , M.D., (“ Bruffet t ” ) at Arkansas Specialit y Ort hopaedics for complaint s of back pain. See Transcript at 980-981, 987-989. Bloom report ed chronic, severe, const ant pain in t he t horacic region of his spine and report ed t hat t he pain was made worse by act ivit y. A physical examinat ion revealed t he following: ... [G]ait and st at ion are normal. Neck[:] normal inspect ion wit h no areas of t enderness[,] normal ROM[,] st abilit y[,] and st rengt h[,] no skin changes not ed[;] low back has normal inspect ion and mild t enderness t o palpat ion[,] slight decreased ROM wit h good st abilit y and st rengt h[,] no marked skin changes not ed. Right lower ext remit y has normal inspect ion and no specific areas of t enderness wit h good ROM[,] good st abilit y and st rengt h[,] no maj or skin changes not ed[;] left lower ext remit y has normal inspect ion wit h no marked areas of t enderness[,] good ROM[,] good st abilit y and st rengt h[,] no maj or skin changes not ed[,] pulses are int act [,] ... Coordinat ion and balance are normal. See Transcript at 980. 5 Bruffet t reviewed Bloom’ s prior imaging and obt ained x-rays of Bloom’ s cervical spine. Bruffet t not ed t hat t he x-rays revealed “ j ust some mild degenerat ive changes.” See Transcript at 980. He diagnosed “ [c]hronic mid back pain[;] t horacic and cervical disc The t ranscript ion of t he not es Bruffet t made during t he examinat ion cont ains very lit t le punct uat ion. 5 13 degenerat ion.” See Transcript at 980. Bruffet t recommended an up-t odat e MRI, not ing t hat Bloom had not had one since 2016. Bloom saw Bruffet t again on Sept ember 10, 2018. See Transcript at 977-979. X-rays of Bloom’ s t horacic spine showed mild degenerat ive changes, see Transcript at 977, and an MRI of his t horacic spine showed no spinal canal st enosis, foraminal st enosis, or disc herniat ion, see Transcript at 986. Bruffet t ’ s diagnosis remained unchanged, and he observed t hat he could not see any specific cause for Bloom’ s t horacic pain. Beginning on Oct ober 16, 2018, Bloom saw Drs. Joseph Jansen, M.D., (“ Jansen” ) and Ahmed Ghaleb, M.D. (“ Ghaleb” ) at t he Advanced Spine and Pain Cent er. 6 The progress not es reflect t hat Bloom described his pain as a sharp, shoot ing, st abbing, t hrobbing pain made worse by lift ing but improved wit h heat , massage, and medicat ion. Upon physical examinat ion, he had pain, t enderness, and a rest rict ed range of mot ion in his t horacic and lumbar spines. Bloom had full st rengt h in his upper and lower ext remit ies, a normal gait , negat ive st raight leg raises, and required no assist ive device t o walk. A back brace was prescribed, and it proved helpful. Medial branch blocks and pain medicat ion were also prescribed. See Transcript at 1088-1093 (10/ 16/ 2018), 1083-1087 (11/ 02/ 2018), 1078-1082 (11/ 26/ 2018), 1075-1077 (12/ 13/ 2018), 1072-1074 (01/ 03/ 2019), 1068-1071 (03/ 14/ 2019), 1064-1067 (05/ 06/ 2019). 6 14 He also received t horacic radiofrequency ablat ion during t he period, and he report ed a great er t han fift y percent improvement in his pain. III. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS AND REVIEW. In 2018, Bloom’ s medical records were reviewed by st at e agency medical expert s. See Transcript at 54-65, 68-85. The expert s opined t hat he had mild t o moderat e limit at ions caused by his ment al impairment s. The expert s also believed t hat he was capable of performing a reduced range of light work. The record cont ains more t han one summary of Bloom’ s earnings hist ory. See Transcript at 172-186. Taken t oget her, t hey reflect t hat he has an out st anding work hist ory. Bloom complet ed a series of document s in connect ion wit h his applicat ion. See Transcript at 200, 202, 214-221. In t he document s, he represent ed, int er alia, t hat he suff ers from fat igue and requires several naps during t he day. He experiences const ant pain, and it impact s his abilit y t o st and/ walk, sit , bend, reach, and lift . At t he t ime he complet ed t he document s, his medicat ions included gabapent in, cit alopram, and mirt azapine. The medicat ions help keep his pain manageable. He can st and/ walk and sit for about one t o t wo hours but has const ant pain. Bloom can at t end t o most of his own personal care, alt hough he requires help bat hing and put t ing on his shoes and socks. He also requires special 15 reminders t o at t end t o his personal care. He can prepare simple meals, perform light house work, shop for groceries, and at t end church. Bloom t est ified during t he administ rat ive hearing. See Transcript at 34-46. He is approximat ely sixt y-t hree inches t all and weighs 219 pounds. He is unable t o work because of his back pain, which impairs his abilit y t o st and/ walk, sit , lift , and bend. His medicat ion makes him t ired, and gabapent in causes him t o gain weight . Bloom somet imes uses an assist ive device t o walk and uses a back brace when he lift s heavy obj ect s. He has difficult y wit h his memory, and his wife handles t he family’ s finances. In his spare t ime, he does paperwork for about t hree hours a week for a nonprofit organizat ion serving soldiers. He is also involved in a recovery program, which meet s t wice a week. The ALJ found at st ep t wo of t he sequent ial evaluat ion process t hat Bloom’ s severe impairment s include PTSD, depression, chronic pain syndrome, lumbar spine spondylosis, and cervical spine degenerat ive disc disease. At st ep t hree, t he ALJ found t hat Bloom does not have an impairment , or combinat ion of impairment s, meet ing or equaling a list ed impairment . Specifically, t he ALJ found t hat Bloom’ s ment al impairment s do not meet or equal List ings 12.02, 12.04, or 12.15, and his spine disorder does not meet or equal List ing 1.04. The ALJ t hen assessed Bloom’ s residual 16 funct ional capacit y and found t hat he is capable of performing sedent ary work wit h t he following addit ional limit at ions: ... t he claimant can perform occupat ions t hat do not require climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds and no more t han occasional climbing of ramps or st airs, balancing, st ooping, kneeling, crouching, or crawling dut ies. The claimant can perform no more t han occasional bilat eral overhead reaching dut ies. The claimant is limit ed t o simple, rout ine, repet it ive t ask j obs wit h supervision t hat is simple, direct , and concret e and work t hat is SVP 1 or 2 j obs t hat can be learned wit hin 30 days t hat do not require int eract ion wit h t he general public, and no more t han occasional changes t o t he workplace set t ing. See Transcript at 15. In so finding, t he ALJ gave no weight t o t he VA’ s Rat ing Decision and discount ed t he opinions of t he st at e agency medical expert s. The ALJ found at st ep four t hat Bloom is unable t o perform his past work. At st ep five, t he ALJ found t hat t here is work available for a hypot het ical individual wit h Bloom’ s limit at ions. The ALJ ident ified t he work as t hat of a document preparer and t able worker. On t he basis of t he finding, t he ALJ concluded t hat Bloom is not disabled for purposes of t he Social Securit y Act . STEP THREE ERROR. Bloom first maint ains t hat his ment al impairment s meet or equal List ings 12.04 and 12.15, and t he ALJ erred when he failed t o so find at st ep t hree. Specifically, Bloom maint ains t hat his impairment s sat isfy t he List ings’ 17 paragraph B crit eria as t he impairment s impact his abilit y t o underst and, remember, and apply informat ion, and his abilit y t o concent rat e, persist , and maint ain pace. 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 st rict ly a medical det erminat ion. See Cockerham v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 492 (8t h Cir. 1990). List ing 12.04 encompasses depressive, bipolar, and relat ed disorders, and List ing 12.15 encompasses t rauma and st ressor-relat ed disorders. The List ings require t he claimant t o sat isfy eit her t he Paragraph B crit eria or t he Paragraph C crit eria. 7 The Paragraph B crit eria require t he showing of an “ ext reme” limit at ion of one area, or “ marked” limit at ion of t wo areas, of ment al funct ioning. 8 Two of t he four areas of ment al funct ioning are t he abilit y t o underst and, remember, or apply informat ion, and t he abilit y t o concent rat e, persist , or maint ain pace. 9 Paragraphs B and C of List ing 12.04 are ident ical t o Paragraphs B and C of List ing 7 12.15. An “ ext reme” limit at ion means t he claimant is “ not able t o funct ion in t his area independent ly, appropriat ely, effect ively, and on a sust ained basis.” See List ing 12.00F(2)(e). A “ marked” limit at ion means his funct ioning in t his area “ independent ly, appropriat ely, effect ively, and on a sust ained basis is seriously limit ed.” See List ing 12.00F(2)(d). 8 In addit ion t o t he abilit y t o underst and, remember, or apply informat ion, and t he abilit y t o concent rat e, persist , or maint ain pace, Paragraph B ident ifies t wo ot her areas of ment al funct ioning. They are t he abilit y t o int eract wit h ot hers and t he abilit y t o adapt or manage oneself. Bloom does not challenge t he findings t hat he has 9 18 The ALJ found t hat Bloom’ s ment al impairment s do not sat isfy t he Paragraph B crit eria. In so finding, t he ALJ found t hat Bloom has only “ mild” limit at ions in underst anding, remembering, or applying informat ion, and in concent rat ing, persist ing, or maint aining pace. 10 Subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole support s t he ALJ’ s considerat ion of Bloom’ s ment al impairment s at st ep t hree. Alt hough Bloom suffers from depression, anxiet y, and PTSD, t he ALJ could find t hat Bloom has only a “ mild” limit at ion in underst anding, remembering, and applying informat ion, and a “ mild” limit at ion in concent rat ing, persist ing, or maint aining pace. The Court so finds for t wo reasons. First , alt hough Bloom has had a t raumat ic brain inj ury and has problems wit h his memory, t he ALJ could find t hat Bloom does not have an “ ext reme” or “ marked” limit at ion in underst anding, remembering, or applying informat ion. On January 8, 2018, or t went y days before t he alleged onset dat e, his memory and overall cognit ion were int act and wit hin normal limit s, his t hought process was logical/ linear, and his insight “ moderat e” limit at ions in int eract ing wit h ot hers and in adapt ing or managing oneself. He also does not challenge t he finding t hat his impairment s do not meet or equal t he Paragraph C crit eria. 10 An “ mild” limit at ion means t he claimant ’ s funct ioning in t his area “ independent ly, appropriat ely, effect ively, and on a sust ained basis is slight ly limit ed.” See List ing 12.00F(2)(b). 19 and j udgment were wit hin normal limit s. See Transcript at 526. Aft er t he alleged onset dat e, Bloom made only sporadic complaint s of memory loss. For inst ance, Bloom saw Ames on several occasions, and she only once not ed his difficult ies wit h memory. See Transcript at 1095. Bloom is able t o follow writ t en and spoken inst ruct ions “ pret t y good,” see Transcript at 219, and does paperwork for a non-profit organizat ion each week, see Transcript at 42. He can drive an aut omobile, go out alone, pay bills, count change, handle a savings account , and use a checkbook. See Transcript at 217. Alt hough Bloom’ s wife does many of t he act ivit ies for him, t he ALJ could find t hat Bloom is nevert heless capable of doing t hem. Second, alt hough Bloom has difficult y concent rat ing, t he ALJ could find t hat Bloom does not have an “ ext reme” or “ marked” limit at ion in concent rat ing, persist ing, and maint aining pace. It bears repeat ing t hat t went y days before t he alleged onset dat e, Bloom’ s at t ent ion and overall cognit ion were int act and wit hin normal limit s, and his t hought process was logical/ linear. See Transcript at 526. Bloom is able t o follow writ t en and spoken inst ruct ions “ pret t y good,” est imat ing t hat he can pay at t ent ion for about an hour. See Transcript at 219. Bloom can at t end t o most of his own personal care, alt hough he requires special reminders t o do so. He can prepare simple meals, perform light house work, and shop for groceries. 20 He volunt eers wit h a non-profit organizat ion and admirably assist s in a recovery program at his church. Bloom fault s t he ALJ for making not e of t he following: “ Alt hough [Bloom] alleged some memory loss and problems making decisions, he did not follow-t hrough wit h a neuropsychological assessment or make addit ional complaint s of t hese sympt oms for one year.” See Transcript at 14. The ALJ did not err in so not ing as Bloom concedes t hat he did not follow-t hrough wit h t he neuropsychological assessment recommended by Keplinger in May of 2018. Bloom places t he blame for t he failure on t he VA, and he might be right . The Court is not persuaded, t hough, t hat t he ALJ placed t oo much weight on Bloom’ s failure t o follow-t hrough wit h t he recommended neuropsychological assessment . Bloom maint ains t hat t he Court should consider a Sept ember 13, 2019, psychological evaluat ion in det ermining whet her t he ALJ properly considered Bloom’ s ment al impairment s at st ep t hree. See Docket Ent ry 13, Exhibit A. The Court will not consider t he evaluat ion because it was prepared aft er t he ALJ’ s August 27, 2019, decision and does not appear t o have been present ed t o t he Appeals Council, see Transcript at 1-5, 166. Moreover, Bloom has failed t o show good cause for failing t o submit t he 21 evaluat ion during t he administ rat ive proceeding, or why t he Court should consider t he evaluat ion at t his lat e j unct ure. Bloom next maint ains t hat his disorder of t he spine meet s or equals List ing 1.04, and t he ALJ erred when he failed t o so find at st ep t hree. Bloom maint ains t hat “ MRIs of [his] spine show[] t hat [he] ha[s] radiculopat hy was well as ot her nerve compression issues.” See Docket Ent ry 13 at CM/ ECF 51. 11 List ing 1.04 encompasses disorders of t he spine result ing in compromise of a nerve root or t he spinal cord. Paragraph A of t he List ing addit ionally requires t he following: A. Evidence of nerve root compression charact erized by neuro-anat omic dist ribut ion of pain, limit at ion of mot ion of t he spine, mot or loss (at rophy wit h associat ed muscle weakness or muscle weakness) accompanied by sensory or reflex loss and, if t here is involvement of t he lower back, posit ive st raight -leg raising t est (sit t ing or supine). The ALJ found t hat Bloom’ s disorder of t he spine does not meet or equal Paragraph A. The ALJ so found because t here is no evidence of “ nerve root compression in a neuro-anat omic dist ribut ion wit h mot or, sensory, or reflex loss, or spinal arachnoidit is confirmed by operat ive not e or Bloom does not maint ain t hat his disorder of t he spine meet s or equals Paragraphs B or C of List ing 1.04. 11 22 pat hology report or lumbar spinal st enosis result ing in pseudoclaudicat ion wit h an inabilit y t o ambulat e effect ive ...” See Transcript at 13. Subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole support s t he ALJ’ s considerat ion of Bloom’ s disorder of t he spine at st ep t hree. Wit hout quest ion, Bloom has a disorder of t he spine, and t he ALJ properly found t hat Bloom did. The ALJ could and did find, t hough, t hat t he impairment does not meet or equal t he Paragraph A crit eria. The Court so finds for t wo reasons. First , as t he Commissioner correct ly not es, “ [Bloom] failed t o ment ion exact ly which MRIs he is referencing.” See Docket Ent ry 14 at CM/ ECF 5. The Court is t herefore left t o guess as t o what medical t est ing support s Bloom’ s assert ion t hat his disorder of t he spine sat isfies t he Paragraph A crit eria. Second, t he medical evidence is inconclusive at best . Test ing performed prior t o t he alleged onset dat e revealed, int er alia, degenerat ive changes and bulging discs in t he cervical, t horacic, and lumbar port ions of Bloom’ s spine, but t he changes were t ypically charact erized as mild t o moderat e. See Transcript at 1039, 509, 1041, 1042, 454, 456, 457-458, 984-985. Test ing and physical examinat ions performed aft er t he alleged onset dat e were equally unremarkable. Ames’ 23 progress not es reflect t hat t he severit y of Bloom’ s pain fluct uat ed. See Transcript at 841-843, 837-840, 832-834, 1105-1106, 1102-1104, 11001101, 1095-1096. Bruffet t ’ s August 1, 2018, progress not e reflect s t hat xrays of Bloom’ s cervical spine revealed “ j ust some mild degenerat ive changes.” See Transcript at 980. Bruffet t ’ s examinat ion of Bloom revealed findings consist ent wit h t he result s of t he x-rays. X-rays of Bloom’ s t horacic spine subsequent ly obt ained showed mild degenerat ive changes, see Transcript at 977, and an MRI of his t horacic spine showed no spinal canal st enosis, foraminal st enosis, or disc herniat ion, see Transcript at 986. The progress not es from Advanced Spine and Pain Cent er also offer lit t le t o support Bloom’ s assert ion. Bloom alt ernat ively maint ains t hat he was diagnosed wit h ot her condit ions medically equivalent t o Paragraph A. The inquiry at st ep t hree is not , t hough, whet her a claimant was diagnosed wit h an impairment . Inst ead, t he inquiry is whet her t he impairment meet s or equals a list ed impairment . Here, he has failed t o show how any of his ot her condit ions meet or equal paragraph A of List ing 1.04. RESIDUAL FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY. Bloom 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. Bloom maint ains t hat his residual funct ional capacit y was 24 erroneously assessed because his impairment s were not adequat ely evaluat ed and because t he ALJ made a flawed credibilit y det erminat ion. 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 t he claimant can do despit e his limit at ions. See Brown v. Barnhart , 390 F.3d 535 (8t h Cir. 2004). The assessment is made using all of t he relevant evidence in t he record. See Jones v. Ast rue, 619 F.3d 963 (8t h Cir. 2010). As a part of t he assessment , t he ALJ must 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 det ermining whet her t he claimant has a medically det erminable impairment t hat could reasonably be expect ed t o produce pain or ot her sympt oms and, if so, by evaluat ing t he int ensit y, persist ence, and limit ing effect s of t he pain or ot her sympt oms. In making t he evaluat ion, t he ALJ must consider all t he evidence, including evidence of t he following: (1) daily act ivit ies; (2) t he locat ion, durat ion, frequency, and int ensit y of pain or ot her sympt oms; (3) fact ors t hat precipit at e and aggravat e t he sympt oms; (4) t he t ype, dosage, effect iveness, and side effect s of any medicat ion t he claimant t akes or has t aken t o alleviat e pain or ot her sympt oms; (5) t reat ment , ot her t han medicat ion, t he claimant receives or has received for relief of pain or ot her sympt oms; (6) any measures ot her t han t reat ment a claimant uses or has used t o relieve pain or ot her sympt oms ...; and (7) any ot her fact ors concerning a 25 claimant ’ s funct ional limit at ions and rest rict ions due t o pain or ot her sympt oms. See Social Securit y Ruling 16-3p. The ALJ assessed Bloom’ s residual funct ional capacit y and found t hat he is capable of performing a reduced range of sedent ary work. Wit h regard t o t he work-relat ed limit at ions caused by Bloom’ s ment al impairment s, t he ALJ rest rict ed Bloom t o simple, rout ine, repet it ive t asks wit h Specific Vocat ional Preparat ion 1 or 2 j obs. The ALJ found t hat t he rest rict ion will reduce t he aggravat ion of st ress in t he work environment and account s for Bloom’ s memory problems. Wit h regard t o t he work-relat ed limit at ions caused by Bloom’ s physical impairment s, t he ALJ rest rict ed Bloom t o work wit h no climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; no more t han occasional climbing of ramps and st airs, balancing, st ooping, kneeling, crouching, or crawling; and no more t han occasional bilat eral overhead reaching. The quest ion for t he ALJ was not whet her Bloom has ment al impairment s in t he form of depression, anxiet y, and PTSD, and physical impairment s in t he form of, int er alia, a spine disorder. Bloom undoubt edly does. The quest ion for t he ALJ was t he ext ent t o which t he impairment s impact t he most Bloom can do. The ALJ incorporat ed limit at ions caused by t he impairment s int o t he assessment of Bloom’ s residual funct ional 26 capacit y. Subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole support s t he assessment as t he ALJ adequat ely considered all t he relevant evidence in making t he assessment . The ALJ adequat ely considered t he medical evidence relevant t o Bloom’ s ment al impairment s. The ALJ properly not ed t hat Bloom was hospit alized on what appears t o have been t hree occasions for depression and suicidal ideat ions caused by psychosocial st ressors, his j ob, and chronic back pain. See Transcript at 15, 19, 20. The first t wo hospit alizat ions were in 2017 and were only for a few days. See Transcript at 407-414, 310-342. Upon Bloom’ s discharge from t he first hospit alizat ion, he report ed t hat it was “ an isolat ed incident ” as a result of a “ ‘ bad’ react ion t o pain medicat ion.” See Transcript at 713. There is lit t le evidence document ing his t hird hospit alizat ion, which apparent ly occurred in 2018. Ames’ progress not e from January 4, 2019, reflect s t hat Bloom report ed feeling “ great overall” aft er his medicat ion was adj ust ed. See Transcript at 1102. The ALJ properly not ed t hat prior t o t he alleged onset dat e, Bloom sought t herapy/ counseling for his ment al healt h problems. See Transcript at 19-20. The progress not es reflect t hat Bloom’ s condit ion improved wit h, int er alia, t he use of medicat ion and t he resumpt ion of a regular rout ine. See Transcript at 696, 679, 663, 650, 582, 568, 556, 540-541. At a January 27 8, 2018, session, his memory and overall cognit ion were int act and wit hin normal limit s, his t hought process was logical/ linear, and his insight and j udgment were wit hin normal limit s. See Transcript at 526. Aft er t he alleged onset dat e, t he record cont ains lit t le in t he way of t herapy/ counseling not es for Bloom’ s ment al healt h problems. The bulk of t he evidence t ouching on his ment al healt h problems comes from t he progress not es prepared by medical professionals who were seeing him for ot her problems. For inst ance, t he ALJ not ed Ames’ progress not e from March 2, 2018, see Transcript at 20, a not e in which Bloom report ed t hat his PTSD and depression were well-cont rolled wit h medicat ion, see Transcript at 841. Bloom t hereaft er saw Ames on a number of occasions, and a fair reading of Ames’ progress not es reflect s t hat t he severit y of Bloom’ s ment al healt h problems fluct uat ed. See Transcript at 837-840, 832-834, 1105-1106, 1102-1104, 1100-1101, 1095-1095. At t imes, Bloom report ed feeling well; at ot her t imes, he report ed increased anxiet y caused by sit uat ional st ressors. The ALJ also properly not ed t he t raumat ic brain inj ury evaluat ion performed by Keplinger on May 23, 2018. See Transcript at 14, 20. During t he course of t he evaluat ion, Bloom complained of, int er alia, difficult ies concent rat ing, remembering, and making decisions. Keplinger diagnosed Bloom wit h a t raumat ic brain inj ury and observed t hat 28 t he maj orit y of Bloom’ s “ current clinical sympt omat ology [was] relat ed t o ment al healt h concerns, [a] sleep [disorder], and chronic pain.” See Transcript at 773. The ALJ adequat ely considered t he non-medical evidence relevant t o Bloom’ s ment al impairment s, and t here is no merit t o Bloom’ s assert ion t hat t he ALJ made a flawed credibilit y det erminat ion wit h respect t o t he limit at ions caused by t hose impairment s. Bloom is capable of driving an aut omobile, going out alone, paying bills, count ing change, handling a savings account , and using a checkbook. See Transcript at 217. Alt hough Bloom requires special reminders t o at t end t o his personal care and has problems wit h concent rat ion and memory, t he ALJ properly not ed t hat Bloom is capable of following writ t en and spoken inst ruct ions “ pret t y good,” does paperwork for a non-profit organizat ion for t wo t o t hree hours each week, report ed no difficult y get t ing along wit h ot hers, part icipat es in a recovery program, and at t ends church regularly. See Transcript at 14. 12 The ALJ also properly not ed t he t herapy/ counseling Bloom received bot h before and aft er t he alleged onset dat e, and t he medicat ion he t ook t o Bloom fault s t he ALJ for observing t hat Bloom is capable of performing paperwork for a non-profit organizat ion t wo t o t hree “ t imes per week,” see Transcript at 14, when Bloom t est ified t hat he does so only t wo t o t hree “ hours a week,” see Transcript at 42. Assuming, arguendo, t hat t he ALJ misst at ed t he record, it is of no consequence. 12 29 help cont rol his sympt oms. See Transcript at 19-20. The ALJ could and did find t hat t he t herapy/ counseling and medicat ion help Bloom manage his sympt oms. The ALJ adequat ely considered t he medical evidence relevant t o Bloom’ s physical impairment s. Wit h respect t o Bloom’ s spine disorder, t he ALJ properly not ed t he medical t est ing and examinat ion result s. See Transcript at 17-18. A summary of t he medical t est ing and examinat ion result s need not be repeat ed; it is sufficient t o not e t hat t hey are inconsist ent . The medical t est ing revealed mild t o moderat e degenerat ive changes. For inst ance, Bruffet t saw Bloom on August 1, 2018, reviewed t he prior medical t est ing, and found only mild degenerat ive changes. See Transcript at 980. Bruffet t subsequent ly obt ained addit ional medical t est ing and again found only mild degenerat ive changes. See Transcript at 977. The examinat ion result s also varied. For inst ance, Bruffet t ’ s examinat ion of Bloom was largely unremarkable, see Transcript at 980, but Jansen and Ghaleb repeat edly found t hat Bloom had pain, t enderness, and a rest rict ed range of mot ion in his t horacic and lumbar spine. See Transcript at 1090, 1085, 1080, 1070, 1065. Because t he medical t est ing and examinat ion result s are capable of more t han one accept able int erpret at ion, t he ALJ could const rued t hem as he did. The fact t hat t here 30 is some evidence support ing Bloom’ s posit ion does not mean t he ALJ’ s decision is not support ed by subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole. See Adamczyk v. Saul, --- Fed.Appx. ---, 2020 WL 3957172 (8t h Cir. 2020). The ALJ also properly not ed t he medical t est ing and examinat ion result s relevant t o Bloom’ s ot her physical impairment s. See Transcript at 16-19. The ALJ found t hat some of t he impairment s, e.g., neck pain, hernia surgery, sleep apnea, and hypert ension, give rise t o work-relat ed limit at ions, and t he ALJ incorporat ed t he limit at ions int o t he assessment of Bloom’ s residual funct ional capacit y. See Transcript at 18. Because t he medical t est ing and examinat ion result s wit h respect t o t hose impairment s is capable of more t han one accept able int erpret at ion, t he ALJ could const rue t hem as he did. The ALJ also adequat ely considered t he non-medical evidence relevant t o Bloom’ s physical impairment s, and t here is no merit t o Bloom’ s assert ion t hat t he ALJ made a flawed credibilit y det erminat ion. The ALJ could and did find t hat Bloom’ s medically det erminable impairment s could reasonably be expect ed t o cause t he alleged sympt oms, but Bloom’ s st at ement s concerning t he int ensit y, persist ence, and limit ing effect s of 31 t he sympt oms were not consist ent wit h “ t he balance of t he record as a whole.” See Noerper v. Saul, 964 F.3d 738, 745, n.3 (8t h Cir. 2020). 13 The ALJ made not e of Bloom’ s daily act ivit ies. Bloom can at t end t o most of his own personal care, alt hough he requires help bat hing and put t ing on his shoes and socks. See Transcript at 215. He can prepare simple meals, perform light house work, shop for groceries, and at t end church. See Transcript at 216-218. He also does paperwork for a non-profit organizat ion and part icipat es in a recovery program. See Transcript at 4143. There is also evidence t hat aft er t he alleged onset dat e, he rode horses, see Transcript at 872, t ravelled t o Texas and back for a fishing compet it ion, see Transcript at 903, and rode an ATV, see Transcript at 837. Those act ivit ies are cert ainly not disposit ive, but t hey go t o t he consist ency of his st at ement s concerning t he int ensit y, persist ence, and limit ing effect s of his sympt oms. The ALJ not ed t he locat ion, durat ion, frequency, and int ensit y of Bloom’ s pain or ot her sympt oms and considered fact ors t hat precipit at e and aggravat e t he sympt oms. For inst ance, t he ALJ not ed Bloom’ s assert ion Social Securit y Ruling 16-3p eliminat ed t he use of t he word “ credibilit y” in making disabilit y det erminat ions and requires t he ALJ t o consider t he consist ency bet ween “ subj ect ive assert ions and t he balance of t he record as a whole.” See Noerper v. Saul, 964 F.3d at 745, n.3 (8t h Cir. 2020). The Ruling “ largely changes t erminology rat her t han t he subst ant ive analysis t o be applied.” See Id. 13 32 t hat he is in const ant pain, pain made worse wit h “ st anding, sit t ing, lift ing, cleaning, walking, and reaching.” See Transcript at 16. It was for t he ALJ t o det ermine t he weight accorded t he evidence offered wit h respect t o t hose fact ors, and t he Court cannot find t hat t he ALJ accorded t he evidence improper weight . The ALJ also not ed t he t ype, dosage, effect iveness, and side effect s of Bloom’ s medicat ion, and t he t reat ment he has received. For inst ance, t he ALJ not ed t hat Bloom st opped t aking narcot ics and opioids, and t he medicat ion he does t ake causes fat igue. The ALJ not ed t hat Bloom has also received dry needling t herapy, st eroid inj ect ions, numerous chiropract ic t reat ment s, and used a TENS unit . The ALJ addit ionally not ed t hat Bloom uses a “ back brace when he does any lift ing of heavy obj ect s.” See Transcript at 16. Again, it was for t he ALJ t o det ermine t he weight accorded t he evidence offered wit h respect t o t hose fact ors, and t he Court cannot find t hat t he ALJ accorded t he evidence improper weight . 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). The ALJ craft ed an assessment of Bloom’ s residual funct ional capacit y t hat limit ed 33 him t o a reduced range of sedent ary work, and Bloom has not shown how t he ALJ erred in doing so. FAILURE TO DEVELOP THE RECORD. Bloom offers a t hird reason why t he ALJ’ s decision is not support ed by subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole. Bloom maint ains t hat t he record was not fully developed because t he ALJ gave no weight t o t he VA’ s Rat ing Decision. The ALJ has a dut y t o fully develop t he record. See Bat t les v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 43 (8t h Cir. 1994). There is no bright line t est for det ermining whet her t he ALJ fully developed t he record; t he det erminat ion is made on a case by case basis. See Id. It involves examining whet her t he record cont ains sufficient informat ion for t he ALJ t o have made an informed decision. See Prat t v. Ast ure, 372 Fed.Appx. 681 (8t h Cir. 2010). Here, t he ALJ not ed t he VA’ s Rat ing Decision. He gave it no weight for t he following reason: “ The undersigned did not provide art iculat ion about t he evidence t hat is inherent ly neit her valuable nor persuasive in accordance wit h 20 CFR 404.1520(b)(c) (Exhibit 3F).” See Transcript at 20. There is sufficient informat ion for t he ALJ t o have made an informed decision. Alt hough his explanat ion for giving no weight t o t he VA’ s Rat ing Decision is not a model of clarit y, t he explanat ion does not warrant a remand for t wo reasons. First , t he VA’ s finding of disabilit y is not binding 34 on t he Social Securit y Administ rat ion. See Evans v. Colvin, 2016 WL 8346542 (E.D.Ark. 2016) (Deere, M.J.), report and recommendat ion adopt ed, 2017 WL 763925 (E.D.Ark. 2017) (Miller, J.). Second, a fair reading of t he Decision indicat es t hat it is largely a summary of t he evidence t he VA relied upon in awarding Bloom benefit s; t he Decision provides lit t le, if any, new or addit ional evidence t o support his claim in t his proceeding. IMPROPER HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION. Bloom offers a fourt h reason why t he ALJ’ s decision is not support ed by subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole. Bloom maint ains t hat t he ALJ relied upon t he answer t o an improperly phrased hypot het ical quest ion at st ep five. Test imony from a vocat ional expert is subst ant ial evidence on t he record as a whole only when “ t he t est imony is based on a correct ly phrased hypot het ical quest ion t hat capt ures t he concret e consequences of a claimant ’ s deficiencies.” See Taylor v. Chat er, 118 F.3d 1274, 1278 (8t h Cir. 1997). The quest ion must include all of t he claimant ’ s impairment s t hat are subst ant ially support ed by t he record as a whole. See Id. A vocat ional expert was asked a series of hypot het ical quest ions during t he administ rat ive hearing. See Transcript at 46-52. The vocat ional expert was first asked t o assume an individual of Bloom’ s age, educat ion, and work experience who could perform a reduced range of sedent ary 35 work. The vocat ional expert t est ified t hat t here was work available for such an individual. The ALJ t hen asked t he vocat ional expert t o assume t he same hypot het ical individual wit h t he following addit ional limit at ion: he is unable t o execut e his dut ies for “ as much as t wo hours a day on a daily basis” as a result of his impairment s. See Transcript at 49. The vocat ional expert t est ified t hat t here was no work available for such an individual. The ALJ did not err in craft ing t he first hypot het ical quest ion or in relying upon t he vocat ional expert ’ s answer t o t he quest ion. The quest ion capt ured t he concret e consequences of Bloom’ s limit at ions and was adequat ely phrased as it conformed t o t he assessment of his residual funct ional capacit y. Admit t edly, t he quest ion did not include t he “ t wo hours off” rest rict ion included in t he second quest ion. The ALJ did not err, t hough, in failing t o incorporat e t he rest rict ion int o t he first quest ion, part icularly in light of Ames and Bruffet t ’ s progress not es. Bloom clearly has ment al impairment s and experiences back pain, but t he ALJ could and did find t hat Bloom’ s ment al impairment s and back pain do not prevent him from performing a reduced range of sedent ary work. CONCLUSION. 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 36 findings. Bloom’ 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 22nd day of Oct ober, 2020. __________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 37
]]>
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.
