Lacroix v. Barnhart

Decision Date20 October 2006
Docket NumberNo. 05-4251.,05-4251.
Citation465 F.3d 881
PartiesLorraine LACROIX, Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

John A. Bowman, argued, Davenport, IA (Michael Depree, Davenport, Iowa, on the brief), for Appellant.

Kevin B. Murphy, argued, Kansas City, MO (Maureen McGuire, Asst. U.S. Attorney, Des Moines, Iowa, on the brief), for Appellee.

Before WOLLMAN, BRIGHT, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.

Lorraine Lacroix appeals the District Court's1 affirmance of the Social Security Commissioner's decision denying her applications for disability insurance benefits (SSDI) and supplemental security income (SSI) under the Social Security Act. We affirm.

I.

Lacroix is a fifty-one-year-old woman with a GED and past work experience as a construction worker and cashier. She claims that, beginning on July 22, 2001, she became disabled and unable to work as a result of combined physical impairments (hearing loss, hand problems, and painful bumps on her arms and legs) and mental impairments (impulse control disorder, anxiety, and depression).

Lacroix was examined by three physicians in connection with her physical ailments. First, on September 5, 2002, Michael Tomek, M.D., evaluated her hearing loss. Dr. Tomek diagnosed Lacroix with bilateral hearing loss that was progressive in nature. Lacroix's discrimination was "very poor, being 44% in the right ear and 60% in the left ear." Admin. R. at 132. Dr. Tomek noted that it was very difficult to understand Lacroix's speech because she was unable to hear all of the consonants and vowels in spoken words. Dr. Tomek recommended a hearing-aid trial, but noted that hearing aids might not be effective given the extent of Lacroix's hearing loss. Finally, Dr. Tomek noted that Lacroix was a candidate for cochlear implants.

The next day, Lacroix was examined by James Putnam, M.D. Dr. Putnam opined that Lacroix had a full range of motion and was able to carry ten pounds on a frequent basis and twenty-five pounds on a rare basis. He noted that she had no limits to standing, walking, or sitting in an eight-hour day. While Dr. Putnam concluded that Lacroix had a moderate degree of hearing difficulty, he noted that she could adequately hear a slightly-above-normal tone of voice.

Jennifer Jones, M.D., examined Lacroix in January 2003. A hearing test revealed that Lacroix had "moderate to severe/profound sensorineural hearing loss," for which Dr. Jones recommended hearing aids. Id. at 179. Dr. Jones also diagnosed Lacroix with depression and prescribed medication for its treatment.

With regard to her mental impairments, Lacroix was examined by Dr. Juan Aquino, a licensed psychologist, in September 2002 and May 2004. After the 2002 visit, Dr. Aquino concluded that Lacroix suffered from adjustment disorder with depression and anxiety, trichotillomania (hair pulling), and personality disorder. Lacroix's Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score was 64, which is indicative of "mild symptoms" or "some difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning ... but generally functioning pretty well." American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition Text Revision 34 (2000) (DSM-IV-TR). Dr. Aquino opined that Lacroix's attention and concentration were adequate, that she should be able to remember and understand simple instructions and procedures, and that her "[j]udgment, reliability, and ability to interact with others may be compromised by any return to regular use of cocaine [which is in remission,] and by underlying characterological difficulties." Admin. R. at 143.

During the May 2004 visit, Dr. Aquino administered two psychological tests: the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Third Edition (WAIS—III) and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory—2 (MMPI—2). On the WAIS—III, Lacroix achieved a full scale intelligence quotient (IQ) score of 80, which placed her in the low-average range of intellectual functioning. On the MMPI—2, Lacroix endorsed a wide variety of rare symptoms and attitudes that suggested an invalid profile consistent with exaggeration and a strong tendency to over-endorse psychological problems. Dr. Aquino diagnosed Lacroix as having personality disorder and major depressive disorder with anxiety. Lacroix's GAF score was then 55, which is indicative of "[m]oderate symptoms" or "moderate difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning." DSM-IV-TR 34. Dr. Aquino concluded that Lacroix had no more than minimal limitations in understanding, remembering, and carrying out short and simple instructions and in making judgments on simple work-related decisions. Lacroix had mild limitations—but could generally function well—in understanding, remembering, and carrying out detailed instructions; in interacting with the public, supervisors and coworkers; and in responding appropriately to changes in routine work settings. Finally, Dr. Aquino noted moderate limitations in Lacroix's ability to respond appropriately to work pressures in a usual work setting, but opined that she would be able to function satisfactorily in this area.

Lacroix received treatment for her mental disorders at the Gannon Center for Community Mental Health. Lacroix began going to the Gannon Center in March 2003, and a team of professionals was appointed to her care. Lacroix met regularly with Pat Everly, a licensed social worker, who provided psychotherapy; Tina Budreau, a nurse practitioner, who proscribed and monitored Lacroix's psychiatric medications; and Terri Spencer, who provided community support services. During Lacroix's first visit, Everly diagnosed Lacroix with posttraumatic stress disorder and major depression. Lacroix's GAF score was 55.

In a March 4, 2004, letter, Budreau and Everly opined that Lacroix's symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder would likely make it difficult for her to maintain focus, concentration, and adequate pace in a job; that Lacroix's fears of being attacked would cause her trouble interacting appropriately with co-workers, supervisors, and the public; and that Lacroix's safety concerns and high anxiety would make it unlikely that she would be able to adapt in the workforce. Budreau and Everly noted, however, that Lacroix "has the intellectual ability to understand, remember, and follow instructions." Admin. R. at 193.

In a June 2004 mental assessment, Budreau noted that Lacroix would be unable to maintain attention for two-hour periods, sustain an ordinary routine without special supervision, work in close coordination with or proximity to others without being unduly distracted, complete a normal workday and workweek without interruptions from psychologically based symptoms, accept instructions and respond appropriately to criticism from supervisors, deal with work stress, use public transportation, travel in unfamiliar places, carry out detailed instructions, set realistic goals, or deal with the stress of semi-skilled or skilled work. On the other hand, Budreau noted that Lacroix would be able to perform many other functions in a satisfactory manner, including understanding, remembering, and carrying out simple instructions, maintaining regular attendance and being punctual, responding appropriately to changes in routine work settings, getting along with coworkers and peers without unduly distracting them or exhibiting behavioral extremes, and maintaining socially appropriate behavior.

The Commissioner denied Lacroix's applications for SSI and SSDI, initially and upon reconsideration. A hearing was then held before an administrative law judge (ALJ) on July 14, 2004. In considering Lacroix's claims, the ALJ followed the familiar five-step analysis mandated by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. The ALJ determined that Lacroix's "sensorineural hearing loss, skin lesions, major depressive disorder with anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, trichotillomania, and personality disorder are considered `severe.'" Admin. R. at 27. The ALJ concluded, however, that these impairments did not meet or medically equal any of the listed impairments described in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. The ALJ then found that Lacroix retained the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform unskilled light work with the following conditions: (1) "lift and carry 25 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently with pushing and pulling commensurate to her lifting and carrying ability," (2) "sit, stand and walk without restrictions," (3) "hearing limitations to the extent that [she] can understand conversations but should not have a job that requires excellent hearing, e.g. not a 911 operator, receptionist or waitress," and (4) "mental limitations that preclude jobs requiring her to deal with the general public." Admin. R. at 25-26. The ALJ included these limitations in hypothetical questions, which he posed to a vocational expert (VE). The VE testified that a person with Lacroix's characteristics and limitations, while not able to perform the requirements of Lacroix's past relevant work, could perform jobs that exist in the national economy, including "addressor," "folder working in a laundry," and "page, someone working in the library replacing materials back on to the shelving." Id. at 286. Because the ability to perform jobs in the national economy precludes a claimant from being deemed disabled, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g), the ALJ determined that Lacroix was not entitled to SSDI benefits or SSI payments.

The administrative appeals council denied review of the ALJ's decision, resulting in a final decision of the Commissioner. Lacroix appealed to the District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and the District Court affirmed the Commissioner's decision. Lacroix now appeals the District Court's decision.

II.

We review de novo the District Court's affirmance of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
972 cases
  • Englerth v. Colvin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • September 29, 2016
  • Johnston v. Colvin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • September 30, 2016
  • Frieden v. Colvin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • September 11, 2015
    ...within which the Secretary may decide to grant or deny benefits without being subject to reversal on appeal.See also Lacroix v. Barnhart, 465 F.3d 881, 885 (8th Cir. 2006) ("[W]e may not reverse merely because substantial evidence exists for the opposite decision.") (quoting Johnson v. Chat......
  • Stephens v. Astrue
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • May 14, 2012
    ...within which the Secretary may decide to grant or deny benefits without being subject to reversal on appeal.See also Lacroix v. Barnhart, 465 F.3d 881, 885 (8th Cir. 2006) ("[W]e may not reverse merely because substantial evidence exists for the opposite decision.") (quoting Johnson v. Chat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume II
    • May 4, 2015
    ...(D.N.J. 1988), § 205.2 Table of Cases Lacroix v. Barnhart , 352 F. Supp.2d 100, 113 (D. Mass. 2005), §§ 1105.10, 1307 Lacroix v. Barnhart, 465 F.3d 881 (8th Cir. Oct. 20, 2006), 8th-06 Lacy v. Barnhart , 309 F. Supp.2d 1345, 1351 & 1351 n.19 (N.D. Ala. 2004), § 1208.5 Laffitte v. Apfel , 81......
  • Case index
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. I - 2014 Preliminary Sections
    • August 2, 2014
    ...F.3d 559 (4 th Cir. July 11, 2006), 4 th -06 Juszczyk v. Astrue , 542 F.3d 626 (8 th Cir. Sept. 15, 2008), 8 th -08 Lacroix v. Barnhart, 465 F.3d 881 (8 th Cir. Oct. 20, 2006), 8 th -06 Leckenby v. Astrue , 487 F.3d 626 (8 th Cir. May 17, 2007), 8 th -07 Masterson v. Barnhart , 363 F.3d 731......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. II - 2014 Contents
    • August 3, 2014
    ...Supp. 80, 83 (D.N.J. 1988), § 205.2 Lacroix v. Barnhart , 352 F. Supp.2d 100, 113 (D. Mass. 2005), §§ 1105.10, 1307 Lacroix v. Barnhart, 465 F.3d 881 (8th Cir. Oct. 20, 2006), 8th-06 Lacy v. Barnhart , 309 F. Supp.2d 1345, 1351 & 1351 n.19 (N.D. Ala. 2004), § 1208.5 Laffitte v. Apfel , 81 F......
  • Case Index
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume I
    • May 4, 2015
    ..., 453 F.3d 559 (4th Cir. July 11, 2006), 4th-06 Juszczyk v. Astrue , 542 F.3d 626 (8th Cir. Sept. 15, 2008), 8th-08 Lacroix v. Barnhart , 465 F.3d 881 (8th Cir. Oct. 20, 2006), 8th-06 Leckenby v. Astrue , 487 F.3d 626 (8th Cir. May 17, 2007), 8th-07 Masterson v. Barnhart , 363 F.3d 731 (8th......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT