Walker v. Social Security Administration Commissioner, No. 4:2014cv04127 - Document 12 (W.D. Ark. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on June 4, 2015. (mll)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Walker v. Social Security Administration Commissioner Doc. 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION LATAWNYA WALKER vs. PLAINTIFF Civil No. 4:14-cv-04127 CAROLYN COLVIN Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION Latawnya Walker (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant to § 205(g) of Title II of the Social Security Act (“The Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2010), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denying her application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Titles II and XVI of the Act. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge to conduct any and all proceedings in this case, including conducting the trial, ordering the entry of a final judgment, and conducting all post-judgment proceedings. ECF No. 5.1 Pursuant to this authority, the Court issues this memorandum opinion and orders the entry of a final judgment in this matter. 1. Background: Plaintiff’s application for DIB was filed on August 15, 2012 and SSI was filed on August 16, 2012. (Tr. 9). Plaintiff alleged she was disabled due to chronic high blood pressure and migraines. (Tr. 111). Plaintiff alleged an onset date of January 10, 2011. (Tr. 9, 111). These applications were denied initially and again upon reconsideration. (Tr. 9, 40-56). Thereafter, Plaintiff requested an 1 The docket numbers for this case are referenced by the designation “ECF. No.___” The transcript pages for this case are referenced by the designation “Tr.” 1 Dockets.Justia.com administrative hearing on her applications and this hearing request was granted. (Tr. 57). Plaintiff’s administrative hearing was held on August 13, 2013. (Tr. 20-39). Plaintiff was present and was represented by counsel, Greg Giles, at this hearing. Id. Plaintiff and Vocational Expert (“VE”) Talesia Beasley testified at this hearing. Id. At the time of this hearing, Plaintiff was thirty-three (33) years old, which is defined as a “younger person” under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(c), and graduated from high school. (Tr. 24-26). On August 30, 2013, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff’s application for DIB and SSI. (Tr. 9-16). In this decision, the ALJ determined Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Act through September 30, 2013. (Tr. 11, Finding 1). The ALJ also determined Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity (“SGA”) since January 10, 2011. (Tr. 11, Finding 2). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had the severe impairments of malignant hypertension and mild obesity. (Tr. 11, Finding 3). The ALJ then determined Plaintiff’s impairments did not meet or medically equal the requirements of any of the Listing of Impairments in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Regulations No. 4 (“Listings”). (Tr. 12, Finding 4). In this decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and determined her RFC. (Tr. 13-15). First, the ALJ indicated he evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and found her claimed limitations were not entirely credible. Id. Second, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the RFC to perform the full range of light work. (Tr. 13, Finding 5). The ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s Past Relevant Work (“PRW”). (Tr. 16, Finding 6). The ALJ found Plaintiff was able to perform her PRW as a chicken processor. Id. Based upon this finding, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not been under a disability as defined by the Act from January 10, 2 2011, through the date of the decision. (Tr. 16, Finding 7). Thereafter, Plaintiff requested the Appeals Council review the ALJ’s decision. (Tr. 3-5). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.968. The Appeals Council declined to review this unfavorable decision. (Tr. 1-2). On September 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed the present appeal. ECF No. 1. The Parties consented to the jurisdiction of this Court on September 30, 2014. ECF No. 5. Both Parties have filed appeal briefs. ECF Nos. 10, 11. This case is now ready for decision. 2. Applicable Law: In reviewing this case, this Court is required to determine whether the Commissioner’s findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2006); Ramirez v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 576, 583 (8th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance of the evidence, but it is enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support the Commissioner’s decision. See Johnson v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1145, 1147 (8th Cir. 2001). As long as there is substantial evidence in the record that supports the Commissioner’s decision, the Court may not reverse it simply because substantial evidence exists in the record that would have supported a contrary outcome or because the Court would have decided the case differently. See Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2001). If, after reviewing the record, it is possible to draw two inconsistent positions from the evidence and one of those positions represents the findings of the ALJ, the decision of the ALJ must be affirmed. See Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065, 1068 (8th Cir. 2000). It is well established that a claimant for Social Security disability benefits has the burden of proving his or her disability by establishing a physical or mental disability that lasted at least one year and that prevents him or her from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. See Cox v. Apfel, 3 160 F.3d 1203, 1206 (8th Cir. 1998); 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act defines a “physical or mental impairment” as “an impairment that results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(3), 1382(3)(c). A plaintiff must show that his or her disability, not simply his or her impairment, has lasted for at least twelve consecutive months. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). To determine whether the adult claimant suffers from a disability, the Commissioner uses the familiar five-step sequential evaluation. He determines: (1) whether the claimant is presently engaged in a “substantial gainful activity”; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment that significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities; (3) whether the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals a presumptively disabling impairment listed in the regulations (if so, the claimant is disabled without regard to age, education, and work experience); (4) whether the claimant has the Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) to perform his or her past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant cannot perform the past work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove that there are other jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform. See Cox, 160 F.3d at 1206; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)-(f). The fact finder only considers the plaintiff’s age, education, and work experience in light of his or her RFC if the final stage of this analysis is reached. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (2003). 3. Discussion: Plaintiff brings the present appeal only claiming the ALJ erred in the RFC determination. ECF No. 10, Pgs. 6-17. In response, the Defendant argues the ALJ did not err in any of his findings. ECF No. 11. 4 Prior to Step Four of the sequential analysis in a disability determination, the ALJ is required to determine a claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). This RFC determination must be based on medical evidence that addresses the claimant’s ability to function in the workplace. See Stormo v. Barnhart, 377 F.3d 801, 807 (8th Cir. 2004). The ALJ should consider “‘all the evidence in the record’ in determining the RFC, including ‘the medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and an individual’s own description of his limitations.’” Stormo v. Barnhart, 377 F.3d 801, 807 (8th Cir. 2004) (quoting Krogmeier v. Barnhart, 294 F.3d 1019 (8th Cir. 2002)). The Plaintiff has the burden of producing documents and evidence to support his or her claimed RFC. See Cox, 160 F.3d at1206; 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). The ALJ, however, bears the primary responsibility for making the RFC determination and for ensuring there is “some medical evidence” regarding the claimant’s “ability to function in the workplace” that supports the RFC determination. Lauer v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 700, 703-04 (8th Cir. 2001). Furthermore, this Court is required to affirm the ALJ’s RFC determination if that determination is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See McKinney v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 860, 862 (8th Cir. 2000). In this matter, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the RFC to perform the full range of light work. (Tr. 13, Finding 5). Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred in this RFC determination by failing to properly consider Plaintiff’s malignant hypertension and the side effects of this impairment. ECF No. 11. However, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC determination. There is no question Plaintiff has a severe impairment related to malignant hypertension. However, a diagnosis and the existence of an impairment, does not establish that such impairment would preclude all work activity. To begin with, the ALJ noted Plaintiff was diagnosed with 5 malignant hypertension even prior to her alleged onset date of January 10, 2011. (Tr. 14). This was based on treatment records from Dr. Joseph Parker from January 20, 2010. (Tr. 150-151). Furthermore, it does not appear that Plaintiff’s hypertension changed significantly over time. The medical records show Plaintiff informed Dr. Parker on a number of occasions she was doing well on her medications. (Tr. 145, 147, 148, 149, 157, 159, 161, 166, 168, 171, 182, 184, 185, 187, 191, 193, 196, 269, 272, 288, 298, 300, 302). Finally, there is no evidence of any organ damage or hospitalizations due to her blood pressure problems. Plaintiff also argues the ALJ ignored Dr. Parkers RFC Assessment. On August 13, 1013, Dr. Parker completed an RFC report. (Tr. 306-309). Dr. Parker found significant limitations that would preclude Plaintiff from performing even sedentary work. Id. The ALJ found those limitations were not supported by Dr. Parker’s progress notes or the medical record. (Tr. 15). Furthermore, a conclusory checkbox form, like that used by Dr. Parker, has little evidentiary value when it cites no medical evidence, and provides little to no elaboration. See Anderson v. Astrue, 696 F.3d 790 (8th Cir. 2012). As shown by the above medical evidence, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC determination. Plaintiff has the burden of establishing her claimed RFC. See Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 790 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Eichelberger v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 584, 590 (8th Cir. 2004)). Because Plaintiff has not met this burden in this case and because the ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by sufficient medical evidence, this Court finds the ALJ’s RFC determination should be affirmed. 4. Conclusion: Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that the decision of the ALJ is supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed. A judgment incorporating these findings will be 6 entered pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52 and 58. ENTERED this 4th day of June 2015. /s/ Barry A. Bryant HON. BARRY A. BRYANT U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
