Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Barnes v. Barryhill

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fort Smith Division

October 5, 2018

RANDY SEAN BARNES PLAINTIFF
v.
NANCY A. BARRYHILL, Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

          MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          HONORABLE MARK E. FORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Plaintiff, Randy Sean Barnes, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a decision of the commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) denying his application for supplemental security income (SSI) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3). In this judicial review, the Court must determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the Commissioner's decision. See U.S.C. § 405(g).

         I. Procedural Background

         Plaintiff filed his application for SSI on February 23, 2016, alleging disability since December 1, 2014, due to diabetes, nerve pain in legs, and loss of hearing. (ECF No. 11, pp. 20, 154-160, 196, 286).

         Plaintiff's application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. (ECF No. 11, pp. 20, 89, 96). An administrative hearing was held on February 14, 2017, before the Hon. Edward M. Starr. (ECF No. 11, pp. 20, 46-67). Plaintiff and a vocational expert (“VE”), Dr. Larry L. Seifert, testified. (ECF No. 11, p. 46). Plaintiff was represented by counsel, Michael J. Hamby. (ECF No. 11, p. 46).

         By written decision dated May 25, 2017, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: type I diabetes mellitus with peripheral neuropathy. (ECF No. 11, p. 22). The ALJ next determined that Plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of any impairment in the Listing of Impairments. (ECF No. 11, p. 23). After discounting Plaintiff's credibility, the ALJ found that Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform sedentary work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(a), except that he can frequently reach, finger, and handle bilaterally, and he can frequently climb, balance, crawl, kneel, stoop, and crouch. (ECF No. 11, p. 23).

         The ALJ found that Plaintiff had no past relevant work (“PRW”), but with the assistance of a vocational expert, the ALJ determined Plaintiff could perform the requirements of the representative occupations of: printed circuit board checker (DOT # 726.684-110), with 6, 638 jobs in the national economy; ordinance checker (DOT # 737.687-026), with 13, 176 jobs in the national economy; and, order clerk (DOT # 209.567-014) with 21, 767 jobs in the national economy. (ECF No. 11, p. 28). The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff had not been under a disability as defined by the Act during the relevant period. (ECF No. 11, p. 28).

         On December 19, 2017, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review. (ECF No. 11, pp. 5-7). Plaintiff subsequently filed this action on January 16, 2018. (ECF No. 1). This matter is before the undersigned for report and recommendation. Both parties have filed appeal briefs (ECF Nos. 14, 15), and the case is ready for decision.

         II. Relevant Evidence

         The undersigned has conducted a thorough review of the entire record in this case. The complete sets of facts and arguments are presented in the parties' briefs and are repeated here only to the extent necessary.

         On November 14, 2011, Plaintiff was seen for a consultative exam by Patricia J. Walz, Ph.D. in connection with a previous disability application. (ECF No. 11, pp. 253-257). She observed that he was on time and wearing glasses, but he had no hearing aids. She described him as a heavy-set man, with poor dentition, who wore jeans a wrinkled shirt, and his fingernails were dirty. (ECF No. 11, p. 253). He reported recent problems with listening and understanding communications and loss of memory. Id. He reported that “[i]t seems like it is worse, but it is not real bad, and I've always had ADHD.” Id. He reported no mental health problems, either currently or in the past. He did not have any idea what might be causing his memory problems; and, while he thought his memory was fine, every time somebody told him something he didn't remember. Id. He reported no psychiatric hospitalization nor participation in counseling or psychotherapy. Id. He reported that he had never taken antidepressants, but that he had taken Ritalin for about a month when he was younger, but it didn't help. Id. He reported that he quit halfway through the first semester of 10th grade and had special classes in both English and Science. (ECF No. 11, p. 254). He reported a belief that he had repeated the first grade and may have had speech therapy for a slight speech impediment. Id. He reported that he had worked in fast food and a tire store in the past, and occasionally helped his mom clean houses, and he was looking for a job. Id. He reported that he had never been fired and had gotten along with his coworkers and bosses. Id. Dr. Walz performed mental status tests and opined that Plaintiff's intellectual functioning was thought to be in the 75-85 range. (ECF No. 11, pp. 255-256). Dr. Walz's diagnoses were: attention deficit disorder by history; history of marijuana and alcohol abuse with continued use of alcohol and report of remission of marijuana; and, rule out borderline intellectual functioning. (ECF No. 11, p. 256). Dr. Walz recommended intellectual and achievement testing. Id.

         On March 7, 2016, Plaintiff had a two-month follow-up appointment with Dr. Suh Niba. (ECF No. 11, pp. 303-306). Dr. Niba noted Plaintiff's prognosis was “good, ” with the expected outcome of “improve, ” and that his diabetes, while usually poorly controlled, had improved since his last visit. (ECF No. 11, pp. 305). Dr. Niba also noted that his home blood sugar range was high. Id. He listed diabetic neuropathy as an associated symptom, and that Plaintiff reported numbness in both of his hands, feet, and legs. Id. Dr. Niba increased Plaintiff's dose of Gabapentin and recommended diet, exercise, avoiding other-the-counter NSAIDS, and weight control. Id.

         On June 7, 2016, Plaintiff returned to see Dr. Niba. (ECF No. 11, pp. 298-300). Dr. Niba again gave Plaintiff a prognosis of “good, ” with the expected outcome of “improve, ” and it was noted that Plaintiff's diabetes, while usually poorly controlled, had improved since his last visit. (ECF No. 11, pp. 294). Diabetic neuropathy was listed as an associated symptom, and Plaintiff reported numbness in both of his hands, feet, and legs. Id. Dr. Niba also noted that Plaintiff's home blood sugar range was high. Id. Dr. Niba adjusted Plaintiff's medication to address his high blood sugar reading, and diet, exercise, avoiding over-the-counter NSAIDS, and weight control were again recommended. (ECF No. 11, p. 299).

         On June 29, 2016, Dr. Niba reviewed Plaintiff's medications and provided a treatment plan for a respiratory infection and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.