Clifton v. Saul
| Decision Date | 19 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 6:19-cv-6024 |
| Parties | STEPHANIE L. CLIFTON PLAINTIFF v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas |
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed October 8, 2019, by the Honorable Erin L. Wiedemann, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 17). Judge Wiedemann recommends affirming the ALJ's decision denying Plaintiff's claim for supplemental security income ("SSI") under the provisions of Title XVI of the Social Security Act and dismissing Plaintiff's case with prejudice. Plaintiff has filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 18). The Court finds this matter ripe for consideration.
This case has a substantial factual background and procedural history. Rather than give an exhaustive recounting, the Court will provide only the facts relevant to the present issue.1
Plaintiff filed an application for SSI on April 28, 2016, alleging an inability to work since January 1, 2010, due to posttraumatic stress disorder. An administrative hearing was held on November 8, 2017. Plaintiff was present and testified. William W. Elmor, vocational expert, was also present and testified.
In a written opinion dated May 31, 2018, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: cataracts, obesity, schizoaffective disorder, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, personality and impulse control disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and substance abuse disorder.However, after reviewing the evidence in its entirety, the ALJ found Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR § 416. 967(b), and that she was able to see to avoid hazards in the work area. The ALJ limited Plaintiff to unskilled work and found that she could perform simple, routine, and repetitive tasks. She also found that Plaintiff could make simple work-related decisions, that interpersonal contact must be incidental to work performed, and that supervision must be simple, direct, and concrete. With the help of the vocational expert, the ALJ determined that there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform, such as a cleaner-housekeeper and a price marker. Ultimately, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff had not been under a disability within the meaning of the Social Security Act since April 28, 2016, the date the application was filed. Thus, the ALJ denied Plaintiff's application for SSI benefits.
Subsequently, Plaintiff requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council, which denied that request on September 18, 2018. Plaintiff filed a Petition for Judicial Review on January 22, 2019. (ECF No. 1). The Court referred this case to Judge Wiedemann for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation.
On October 8, 2019, Judge Wiedemann entered a Report and Recommendation in this manner. Judge Wiedemann finds that the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence and recommends that this case be dismissed with prejudice. (ECF No. 17). On October 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 18).
This Court's role is to determine whether the ALJ's findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Ramirez v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 576, 583 (8th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance, but it is enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support the ALJ's decision. Edwards v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 964, 966 (8th Cir. 2003).The ALJ's decision must be affirmed if the record contains substantial evidence to support it. Id. As long as there is substantial evidence in the record that supports the ALJ'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. Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2001). In other words, 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. 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 disability by establishing a physical or mental disability that has lasted at least one year and that prevents him from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1217 (8th Cir. 2001); see also 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). A "physical or mental impairment" is defined 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).
To determine whether to award Social Security Disability benefits, a five-step sequential evaluation is used:
(1) whether the claimant is presently engaged in "substantial gainful activity"; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment . . .; (3) whether the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals a presumptively disabling impairment listed in the regulations . . .; (4) whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity 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.
Cox v. Apfel, 160 F.3d 1203, 1206 (8th Cir. 1998). For purposes of this evaluation, a "severe" impairment is one that significantly limits an individual's physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities. Page v. Astrue, 484 F.3d 1040, 1043 (8th Cir. 2007); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521(a). "The ability to do basic work activities is defined as 'the abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs.'
These abilities and aptitudes include . . . capacities for seeing." Henning v. Colvin, 943 F. Supp. 2d 969, 990 (N.D. Iowa 2013) (internal citation omitted); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521(b).
An RFC assessment determines the most work an individual is capable of doing despite the combined effects of their severe and non-severe impairments. Ford v. Astrue, 518 F.3d 979, 981 (8th Cir. 2008); see also Draper v. Barnhart, 425 F.3d 1127, 1131 (8th Cir. 2005) (). The RFC determination must consider "'all 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, 1024 (8th Cir. 2002)).
Plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation, arguing that: (1) the ALJ's RFC determination as to her physical functional limitations is unsupported by substantial evidence; (2) the ALJ's RFC determination as to Plaintiff's mental impairments is unsupported by substantial evidence; and (3) because the ALJ's RFC determination is flawed, the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert was necessarily flawed, resulting in erroneous step-five conclusions by the ALJ. The Court addresses each of Plaintiff's arguments in turn.
The Court first addresses Plaintiff's argument that the ALJ's RFC as to her physical functional limitations is unsupported by substantial evidence.
Plaintiff first argues that the ALJ did not consider Plaintiff's limited near acuity when makingthe RFC determination.2 The ALJ gave great weight to the opinions of Dr. Wellons and Dr. Ballard, who both opined that Plaintiff could perform light exertion with a limitation to jobs that do not require excellent vision. The ALJ also noted Dr. Doyle's report that Plaintiff had uncorrected 20/60 in her right eye and 20/70 vision in her left eye and of Plaintiff's various diagnoses of cataracts and glaucoma. The ALJ further noted that several of the physicians who examined Plaintiff opined that she had no difficulty maneuvering around their offices. The ALJ also considered Plaintiff's testimony about her ability to function in her personal life. Plaintiff reported that she had no problems with personal care and doing chores around the house, including laundry, sweeping, and mopping. She stated that one of her hobbies was watching television with her husband. She also reported that she cared for her husband; that she fed, watered, and played with her pets; and that she prepared simple meals. Therefore, the Court finds that the ALJ considered Plaintiff's limited vision in making the RFC determination and that there is substantial evidence in the record supporting the ALJ's decision.
Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ's RFC is flawed because she...
To continue reading
Request your trial