Hayden v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.

1

HONEY HAYDEN PLAINTIFF v. COMMISSIONER of SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION DEFENDANT

No. 4:22-CV-00376-JM-JTK

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Central Division

April 5, 2023

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

This Recommended Disposition (Recommendation) has been sent to United States District Judge James M. Moody Jr. Either party may file written objections to this Recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection.

To be considered, objections must be received in the office of the Court Clerk within 14 days of this Recommendation. If no objections are filed, Judge Moody can adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. By not objecting, parties may also waive the right to appeal questions of fact.

I. INTRODUCTION

On August 20, 2019, Honey Hayden applied for disability benefits, alleging disability beginning on April 15, 2014. (Tr. at 12). Her claims were denied both initially and upon reconsideration. Id. After conducting a hearing on December 7, 2020, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Hayden's application on February 18, 2021. (Tr. at 23). Hayden sought review from the Appeals Council, which denied her request.

(Tr. at 1). The ALJ's decision thus stands as the final decision of the Commissioner, and Hayden now seeks judicial review.

For the reasons stated below, this Court should affirm the decision of the Commissioner.

II. THE COMMISSIONER'S DECISION^[1]

The ALJ found that Hayden had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date of April 15, 2014. (Tr. at 15). At Step Two of the disability evaluation, the ALJ found that Hayden had the following severe impairments: diabetes mellitus, diabetic polyneuropathy, stage III chronic kidney disease, atrial fibrillation, and hypertension. Id.

After finding Hayden's impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment, the ALJ determined that she had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform work at the light exertional level, except that: (1) she could not climb ropes, ladders, or scaffolds; (2) she could only occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, and climb ramps or stairs; (3) she could not be exposed to temperature extremes of heat or cold; and (4) she could not be exposed to concentrated fumes, odors, or gases. (Tr. at 17-18).

At Step Four, the ALJ found that Hayden had no past relevant work she could perform. (Tr. at 21). Relying upon the testimony of a Vocational Expert (“VE”), the ALJ found that Hayden's RFC would allow her to perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy, including the jobs of merchandise marker and subassembler. (Tr. at 22). The ALJ concluded, therefore, that Hayden was not disabled. (Tr. at 23).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

The Court's function on review is to determine whether the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and whether it is based on legal error. Miller v. Colvin, 784 F.3d 472, 477 (8th Cir. 2015); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). While “substantial evidence” is that which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, “substantial evidence on the record as a whole” requires a court to engage in a more scrutinizing analysis:

“[O]ur review is more than an examination of the record for the existence of substantial evidence in support of the Commissioner's decision; we also take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from that decision.” Reversal is not warranted, however, “merely because substantial evidence would have supported an opposite decision.”

Reed v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 917, 920 (8th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).

In clarifying the “substantial evidence” standard applicable to review of administrative decisions, the Supreme Court has explained: “And whatever the meaning of ‘substantial' in other contexts, the threshold for such evidentiary sufficiency is not high. Substantial evidence . . . is ‘more than a mere scintilla.'” Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S.Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 59 S.Ct. 206, 217 (1938)). “It means-and means only-‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'” Id.

B. Hayden's Arguments on Appeal

Hayden argues that the ALJ's decision is not supported by substantial evidence. She alleges that the ALJ erred by: (1) finding that Hayden could perform the standing and walking requirements of light work; and (2) failing to obtain medical opinions from Hayden's treating physicians. Hayden also seeks a declaratory judgment stating that “the system used by the Social Security Administration results in decisions that are arbitrary and capricious, fails to provide Constitutionally required due process as required by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and fails to provide equal protection as required by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Doc. 11 at 18. After reviewing the record as a whole, the Court concludes that the ALJ did not err in denying benefits.

Claim 1: RFC for Light Work

Hayden first argues that the ALJ should have made explicit findings about her ability to stand and walk but failed to do so. She contends that the ALJ committed reversible error by not specifically pointing to evidence showing she could stand or walk for six hours in a workday. She suggests that her foot pain, diabetic neuropathy, and cardiac issues-with associated symptoms of dizziness, weakness, and fatigue-cast doubt on this portion of the RFC.

This argument is unavailing. To be clear, it is Hayden-not the ALJ-who bears the burden of proving her functional capabilities. “The ALJ bears the primary responsibility for determining a claimant's RFC and because RFC is a medical question, some medical evidence must support the determination of the claimant's RFC. However, the burden of persuasion to prove disability and demonstrate RFC remains on the claimant.” Martise v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 909, 923 (8th Cir. 2011) (internal citation omitted) (quoting Vossen v. Astrue, 612 F.3d 1011, 1016 (8th Cir. 2010)). And, although the Court reviews the ALJ's decision to ensure the ALJ did not “disregard evidence or ignore potential limitations,” the ALJ is not required to “mechanically list and reject every possible limitation” in formulating the RFC. McCoy v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 605, 615 (8th Cir. 2011) (citing Depover v. Barnhart, 349 F.3d 563, 567 (8th Cir. 2003) (“Here, however, the ALJ did not simply describe the RFC in ‘general terms.' He made explicit findings and, although we would have preferred that he had made specific findings as to sitting, standing, and walking, we do not believe that he overlooked those functions.”)).

The ALJ properly assessed Hayden's RFC by considering the record as a whole, including the medical records, prior administrative medical findings from reviewing physicians, and Hayden's own description of her limitations. See Hensley v. Colvin, 829 F.3d 926, 931-32 (8th Cir. 2016). The ALJ specifically limited Hayden to light work with postural restrictions “to account for [her] cardiovascular, endocrine, and neurological conditions and prevent[] exacerbating [her] symptoms of pain, weakness, and neuropathy.” (Tr. at 20). Implicit in the RFC is the ALJ's finding that Hayden could stand or walk up to six hours per workday. See Carter v. Sullivan, 909 F.2d 1201, 1202 (8th Cir. 1990); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 83-10, 1983 WL 31251, at *5-6 (1983). Substantial evidence supports the ALJ's finding.

The medical records support the RFC. They show that Hayden's neuropathy resulted in partial foot numbness and pain in her feet, which was somewhat controlled by medication. (Tr. at 557, 583, 714, 799). Physical exams showed intermittent edema in her feet, along with wounds that were slow to heal. (Tr. at 564, 764). However, her exam findings were generally unremarkable, showing normal station, gait, strength, and ambulation. (Tr. at 633-34, 641, 655-57). Hayden had a long history of poorly controlled diabetes, but it was “controlled well” more recently through diet and medication. (Tr. at 20, 573, 578, 702, 775). The medical records do show Hayden had a history of heart palpitations which showed improvement with medication. (Tr. at 643). Cardiac testing from 2016-2018 sometimes indicated mild abnormalities, while other tests, including EKGs, an echocardiogram, and a stress test, produced normal results. (Tr. at 644-46, 652, 659, 665, 679, 680, 695). Musculoskeletal and neurological exam findings were generally normal. See id. Hayden's conservative treatment history, normal physical exam findings, and good response to treatment support the light work RFC.

State agency consultant Jerry Thomas, M.D. reviewed the medical records and opined that Hayden was capable of occasionally lifting and carrying up to 20 pounds; frequently lifting and carrying 10 pounds; pushing and pulling without limitation, except as noted for lifting and carrying; and sitting, standing, and/or walking for up to six hours per workday. (Tr. at 85). Hayden's own reports of her functional abilities support the RFC as well. She reported that she was able to take care of pets, manage her personal care, drive, run errands, prepare 30-minute meals, shop in stores weekly, handle the household chores by herself, and walk a mile before needing to stop and rest for 15 minutes. (Tr. at 36-37, 46-47, 200-07).

Hayden has not directed the Court to any evidence proving that her ability to stand or walk is more limited than her RFC suggests. The ALJ's analysis was sufficient and substantial evidence supports his findings.

Claim 2: Development of the Record

Hayden's second allegation of...