Rahe v. Astrue
| Decision Date | 14 December 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. C11–3002–PAZ.,C11–3002–PAZ. |
| Citation | 180 Soc.Sec.Rep.Serv. 180,840 F.Supp.2d 1119 |
| Parties | Arliss R. RAHE, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
David A. Scott, Cornwall Avery Bjornstad Scott, Spencer, IA, for Plaintiff.
Teresa K. Baumann, United States Attorney's Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Defendant.
The plaintiff, Arliss R. Rahe, seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”) denying her application for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) pursuant to Title II of the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Rahe contends that the administrative record (“AR”) does not contain substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's decision that she is not disabled. For the reasons that follow, the Commissioner's decision is reversed, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings.
Rahe was born in 1947, completed one year of college, and previously worked as a hair dresser, general office clerk, and home health aide. AR 16, 106, 112, 117. On May 23, 2007, Rahe applied for DIB, alleging disability beginning on April 12, 2007, due to lower back and right shoulder pain. AR 8, 90–94, 106, 111. The Commissioner denied Rahe's application initially and again on reconsideration; consequently, Rahe requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). AR 44–57. On April 22, 2009, ALJ Thomas M. Donahue held a hearing in which Rahe testified. AR 22–43. On September 25, 2009, the ALJ issued a decision finding Rahe not disabled since the alleged onset date of disability of April 12, 2007. AR 5–21. Rahe sought review of this decision by the Appeals Council, which denied review on November 15, 2010. AR 1–4. The ALJ's decision thus became the final decision of the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.981.
On January 13, 2011, Rahe filed a complaint in this court seeking review of the ALJ's decision. On February 9, 2011, with the parties' consent, Judge Mark W. Bennett transferred the case to the undersigned for final disposition and entry of judgment. The parties have briefed the issues, and the matter is now fully submitted.
Unless otherwise noted below, the court will review the record from Rahe's alleged onset date of disability of April 12, 2007. See Dipple v. Astrue, 601 F.3d 833, 834 (8th Cir.2010) ().
On April 17, 2007, an MRI of Rahe's lumbar spine revealed degenerative changes in the lower lumbar spine with grade I anterior spondylolisthesis of L4 on L5 and severe bilateral foraminal narrowing at L5–S1. AR 235.
On April 19, 2007, Jennifer Von Bank, a certified physician assistant at Kossuth Family Health Center, restricted Rahe to “light duty” work, with no lifting of greater than fifteen pounds and no repetitive bending, stooping, or squatting. AR 234. “DJD of LS spine.” AR 234.
On May 15, 2007, X-rays of Rahe's cervical spine revealed “mild cervical spondylosis at multiple levels primarily at C5/6.” AR 238. Alexander Pruitt, M.D., an orthopedist, noted that X-rays of Rahe's lumbar spine showed that AR 231–32. Dr. Pruitt's assessments included “facet arthropathy at L5, S1 bilaterally” and “hand pain with positive Tinel's in her elbow with previous carpal tunnel surgeries bilaterally with neck pain and bilateral shoulder pain.” AR 232.
Rahe underwent a “technically successful” right L5–S1 epidural steroid injection. AR 237. Dr. Pruitt's note indicated “no work” until Rahe's follow-up appointment on June 7, 2007. AR 225.
On May 17, 2007, Dr. Pruitt noted that Rahe could return to work after two weeks. AR 230.
On May 24, 2007, nerve conduction studies were normal; EMG revealed no abnormalities and “no electrodiagnostic evidence of neuropathy, plexopathy, or radiculopathy involving the upper extremities.” AR 229.
On May 24, 2007, Dr. Pruitt reviewed an MRI that revealed “pretty significant foraminal stenosis at L5, S1 bilaterally,” but was “otherwise pretty unremarkable.” AR 227.
On May 29, 2007, Rahe underwent a second lumbar epidural steroid injection. AR 226. On June 5, 2007, Rahe underwent a third lumbar epidural steroid injection. AR 224.
On June 7, 2007, Dr. Pruitt remarked in a treatment note as follows:
We discussed doing bilateral facet injections and we also can try single nerve root injections. There are a lot of problems with her work. She works at Home Health assisting an aide, so she has to do a lot of cleaning and take care of her. They don't have light duty for her. We will leave her off of work. If they have light duty for her they will call us back. We will give the epidural a chance to work for a few weeks and if it is not much better, we will set up L5, S1 bilateral facet injections in a couple of weeks. She may have to have a surgical release also and decompression if she gets no relief.
AR 221.
On June 14, 2007, Rahe received an injection to treat her right shoulder pain. AR 220. On June 21, 2007, Rahe underwent a right L5–S1 facet injection. AR 219.
On June 27, 2007, Dr. Pruitt noted that Rahe “is currently working with a 15 pound lifting restriction, no repetitive bending, stooping or squatting.” AR 217.
On July 5, 2007, Dr. Pruitt restricted Rahe's work to AR 259.
On August 22, 2007, Dr. Pruitt noted Rahe's twenty-pound lifting restriction. AR 254.
On September 26, 2007, Dr. Pruitt remarked in a treatment note as follows:
She comes back to see us for follow up after a single nerve root injection. That was done on the 12th, CT directed left L5 selective nerve root injection done by Dr. Paul Skopec. We last saw her on the 4th of September. Most [of] her discomfort is the left leg and she said the Medrol Dosepak she said worked for four days [sic]. She had facet injections on the 21st of June. She comes back to see us to let us know how she is doing. There is severe bilateral foraminal narrowing at L5/S 1 and grade 1 anterior listhesis [sic] at L4/5. She is 60 years old.
We have tried everything including single nerve root injection. She finally got some partial relief of her symptoms but she has the numbness in her foot. With her significant foraminal stenosis we tried letting her go back to work and it has not worked[;] she just gets recurrence of her symptoms. We have gotten to the point right now that we do not think surgical intervention will make her better but we have maximized all of her treatment at this point in time. I do not think she will be able to go back to doing housekeeping any more. She was doing housekeeping for home health. At this point in time I would say she is not able to return to that. We will call Social Security Disability[;] they want an update from January until now and will let them know that. She will need to be on intermittent medications and intermittent injections to relieve her pain.
Her other problem today is that she has shoulder problems. She cannot sleep on it[;] it is [bothering] her quite a bit.
AR 271, 316.
On October 3, 2007, X-rays of Rahe's left shoulder were unremarkable, with no fracture, dislocation, or other acute bony pathology identified. AR 315.
An MRI taken on October 15, 2007, revealed a “relatively unremarkable left shoulder”; “no indication of full thickness rotator cuff tear, significant tendinopathy or partial surface tear of any of the tendons comprising the rotator cuff tendon”; and “moderate left AC joint arthopathy with overgrowth.” AR 312.
On November 21, 2007, Rahe reported to Dr. Pruitt that a shoulder injection on November 8 “helped a bit but it is still bothering her quite a bit.” AR 304. Dr. Pruitt noted that AR 304.
On March 17, 2008, Dr. Pruitt's treatment note stated the following:
Patient returns to our orthopaedic clinic today in follow-up of her low back pain. She has undergone 3 cortisone injections as well as a L5 left nerve root injection. Since the injections, she has not noticed any improvement of her symptoms. She has undergone physical therapy in Emmetsburg. She has had 90% improvement of her symptoms. She denies any lower leg involvement and her back pain has improved as well. She is now able to do housework without problems. She has not noticed any weakness. She denies any numbness or tingling. She is doing her home exercise program religiously and knows the importance of this as well. ....
Since she is doing well, she would like to continue on conservative treatment. She will continue her home exercise program daily. She will return to work today with no restrictions. I talked to her about watching her symptoms and if they return, she will back off on her activities, but still continue her activities of daily living. She is in agreement with this plan. She received a work release today to return to work with no restrictions.
AR 300.
On July 19, 2007, James Wilson, M.D., a state agency medical consultant, assessed Rahe's physical residual functional capacity (“RFC”). AR 241–48. Dr. Wilson opined that Rahe could (1) lift...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gann v. Colvin
...have refused a request to submit additional interrogatories to the VE, Gann would have a valid complaint. See, e.g., Rahe v. Astrue, 840 F.Supp.2d 1119, 1137–39 (N.D.Iowa 2011) (claimant's due process rights were violated when the claimant's counsel submitted additional interrogatories but ......
-
Gann v. Colvin
...refused a request to submit additional interrogatories to the VE, Gann would have a valid complaint. See, e.g., Rahe v. Astrue, 840 F. Supp. 2d 1119, 1137-39 (N.D. Iowa 2011) (claimant's due process rights were violated when the claimant's counsel submitted additional interrogatories but th......
-
Pautler v. Berryhill
...interrogatories violated his rights or constituted a failure to fully and fairly develop the record. See Rahe v. Astrue, 840 F.Supp.2d 1119, 1139 (N.D. Iowa 2011). Here, the ALJ's exclusion of these questions did not deprive the plaintiff of the opportunity to develop his case. See Kelly v.......
-
Vicky H. v. Comm'r
...doing laundry, shopping, driving, and walking, are inconsistent with subjective complaints of disabling pain."); Rahe v. Astrue, 840 F.Supp.2d 1119, 1136 (N.D.Iowa 2011) (finding that substantial evidence in the record ofclaimant's reported activities supported the ALJ's adverse credibility......