Nichols v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION MATTHEW NICHOLS PLAINTIFF vs. Civil No. 2:22-cv-02136 COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION DEFENDANT REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Matthew Nichols (“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 his applications for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”), Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”), and period of disability under Titles II and XVI of the Act.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) (2009), the Honorable P. K.

Holmes, III referred this case to this Court for the purpose of making a report and recommendation.

In accordance with that referral, and after reviewing the arguments in this case, this Court recommends Plaintiff’s case be REVERSED AND REMANDED.

1. Background: On January 31, 2019, Plaintiff protectively filed his disability applications. (Tr. 10). 1 In these applications, Plaintiff alleges being disabled due to rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia, bad 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” and refer to the document filed at ECF No. 11. These references are to the page number of the transcript itself not the ECF page number. discs in his back, and cysts in his heck and spine. (Tr. 234). Plaintiff originally alleged an onset date of September 15, 2018. (Tr. 10). These applications were denied initially on September 5, 2019, and these applications were denied again on reconsideration on January 7, 2020. (Tr. 10).

After these denials, Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing, and this hearing request was granted. (Tr. 33-78). Plaintiff’s administrative hearing was held on November 12, 2020, and this hearing was held in Russellville, Arkansas. Id. Plaintiff was present and was represented by Meghan Gallo at this hearing. Id. Plaintiff and Vocational Expert (“VE”) Montie Lumpkin testified at this hearing. Id. At this hearing, Plaintiff testified he was thirty-eight (48) years old on his alleged disability onset date. (Tr. 40). Such an individual is defined as a “younger individual” under 20 C.F.R § 404.1563(c) and 20 C.F.R. § 416.963(c). Id. The ALJ determined Plaintiff had at least a high school education and had completed a semester in college. (Tr. 40- 41).

On June 3, 2021, after the administrative hearing, the ALJ entered a fully unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff’s applications. (Tr. 7-30). The ALJ found Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Act through June 30, 2023. (Tr. 13, Finding 1). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity (“SGA”) since September 15, 2018, his alleged disability onset date. (Tr. 13, Finding 2).

The ALJ determined Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: rheumatoid arthritis, degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine, degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, dorsalgia or back pain, degenerative joint disease of both hips, chronic pain syndrome, obesity, left-sided radial styloid tenosynovitis, insomnia, gastroesophageal reflux disease, major depressive disorder, and unspecified anxiety disorder. (Tr. 13, Finding 3). Despite being severe, the ALJ also determined Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (“Listings”). (Tr. 13-15, Finding 4).

In this decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective allegations and determined his Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”). (Tr. 16-21, Finding 5). Specifically, the ALJ found Plaintiff retained the following RFC: After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except he can occasionally climb, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. He can frequently, but not constantly, reach, handle, and finger bilaterally. He can perform work where interpersonal contact is routine, but superficial. He can perform work where tasks are no more complex than those learned by experience, with several variables and use of judgment within limits. He can perform work where the supervision required is little for routine tasks, but detailed for non-routine tasks. Id. The ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s Past Relevant Work (“PRW”). (Tr. 21-23, Finding 6). The VE testified at the administrative hearing regarding this issue. Id. Based upon that testimony, the ALJ found Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform his PRW as a jailer. Id. The ALJ also considered whether there was other work Plaintiff could perform. Id. The VE also testified regarding this issue and found Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform the following occupations: (1) investigator/dealer accounts (light, unskilled) with approximately 10,255 such jobs in the national economy; (2) furniture rental consultant (light, unskilled) with approximately 60,382 such jobs in the national economy; and (3) counter clerk/photo finishing (light, unskilled) with approximately 1,732 such jobs in the national economy. Id. Plaintiff requested the Appeals Council’s review of the ALJ’s unfavorable disability determination. On June 28, 2022, the Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ’s disability determination. (Tr. 1-6). On August 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed the present appeal. ECF No. 1. The Parties have filed appeal briefs. ECF Nos. 13, 15. Plaintiff has also filed a reply brief. ECF No. 18. 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) (2010); 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, 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: In his appeal brief, Plaintiff raised the following three arguments for reversal for reversal: (A) the ALJ erred at Step Four by failing to resolve an apparent conflict between the VE’s testimony and the DOT; (B) the ALJ denied him a full and fair hearing and failed to fulfill his burden at Step Five; and (C) the ALJ erred by failing to meet his burden at Step Five. ECF No. at 4-21. Upon review, because the Court finds the ALJ erred in assessing Plaintiff’s subjective allegations and in assessing his RFC, the Court will only address this issue.

The Court notes that in assessing the subjective allegations of a claimant, the ALJ is required to examine and to apply the five factors from Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984) or from 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and 20 C.F.R. § 416.929.2 See Shultz v. Astrue, 479 F.3d 979, 983 (2007). The factors to consider are as follows: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; (3) the precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; and (5) the functional restrictions. See Polaski, 739 at 1322.

The factors must be analyzed and considered in light of the claimant’s subjective allegations of pain. See id. The ALJ is not required to methodically discuss each factor as long as the ALJ acknowledges and examines these factors prior to discounting the claimant’s subjective allegations. See Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969, 971-72 (8th Cir. 2000). As long as the ALJ properly applies these five factors and gives several valid reasons for finding that the Plaintiff’s subjective allegations are not entirely reliable, the ALJ’s determination of subjective allegations is entitled to deference. See id.; Cox v. Barnhart, 471 F.3d 902, 907 (8th Cir. 2006). The ALJ, however, cannot discount Plaintiff’s subjective allegations “solely because the objective medical evidence does not fully support them [the subjective allegations].” Polaski, 739 F.2d at 1322.

When discounting a claimant’s subjective allegations of pain, the ALJ must make a specific determination regarding that claimant’s subjective allegations, articulating the reasons for discrediting the testimony, addressing any inconsistencies, and discussing the Polaski factors. See Baker v. Apfel, 159 F.3d 1140, 1144 (8th Cir. 1998). The inability to work without some pain or discomfort is not a sufficient reason to find a Plaintiff disabled within the strict definition of the Social Security Regulations 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and 20 C.F.R. § 416.929 require the analysis of two additional factors: (1) “treatment, other than medication, you receive or have received for relief of your pain or other symptoms” and (2) “any measures you use or have used to relieve your pain or symptoms (e.g., lying flat on your back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes every hour, sleeping on a board, etc.).” However, under Polaski and its progeny, the Eighth Circuit has not yet required the analysis of these additional factors. See Shultz v. Astrue, 479 F.3d 979, 983 (2007). Thus, this Court will not require the analysis of these additional factors in this case.

Act. The issue is not the existence of pain, but whether the pain a Plaintiff experiences precludes the performance of substantial gainful activity. See Thomas v. Sullivan, 928 F.2d 255, 259 (8th Cir. 1991).

In the present action, the Court finds the ALJ did not provide sufficient reasons for discounting Plaintiff’s subjective allegations. In his opinion, the ALJ discounted Plaintiff’s subjective complains for the following reasons: After a careful consideration of all the evidence and from the opinion evidence as considered, the claimant’s reported symptoms are not found to be fully consistent with the record. Further, the totality of the evidence supports the residual functional capacity assessment set forth above. (Tr. 21).

Based upon this review, the Court finds the ALJ improperly discounted Plaintiff’s subjective allegations based upon his medical records. See Polaski, 739 F.2d at 1322 (holding a claimant’s subjective allegations cannot be discounted “solely because the objective medical evidence does not fully support them [the subjective allegations]”). Accordingly, because the ALJ provided an insufficient basis for discounting Plaintiff’s subjective allegations, this case must be reversed and remanded.

4. Conclusion: Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that the decision of the ALJ, denying benefits to Plaintiff, is not supported by substantial evidence and recommends it be REVERSED AND REMANDED.

The Parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The Parties are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990).

ENTERED this 27th day of April 2023.

Barry A. Bryant /s/ HON. BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE