United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
INSTRUCTIONS
This
Recommended Disposition (Recommendation) has been sent to
Judge Kristine Baker. Either party to this suit may file
written objections with the Clerk of Court. To be considered,
objections must be filed within 14 days. Objections should be
specific and should include the factual or legal basis for
the objection.
If
parties do not file objections, they risk waiving the right
to appeal questions of fact. And, if no objections are filed,
Judge Baker can adopt this Recommendation without
independently reviewing the record.
I.
Background
John
Brown applied for social security disability benefits with an
alleged onset date of January 1, 2015. (R. at 83). After a
hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) denied Mr.
Brown's application. (R. at 25). The Appeals Council
denied his request for review (R. at 1); therefore, the
ALJ's decision now stands as the Commissioner's final
decision. Mr. Brown filed this lawsuit seeking judicial
review.
II.
The Commissioner's Decision
The ALJ
found that Mr. Brown had the following severe impairments:
degenerative disk disease of the cervical spine status
post-two surgeries; nonobstructive coronary artery disease;
diastolic dysfunction; obesity; obstructive sleep apnea;
hypertension; history of seizure/syncope; learning disorder;
borderline intellectual functioning; and adjustment disorder
with depressed mood/depressive disorder, not otherwise
specified. (R. at 12). The ALJ determined that Mr. Brown had
the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform light work,
except that he could only occasionally climb ramps and
stairs; could never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; could
only occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl;
would have to avoid concentrated exposure to hazards
including no driving as part of work; and could perform
unskilled work only where interpersonal contact is incidental
to the work performed, the complexity of tasks is learned and
performed by rote, with few variables and little use of
judgment, and with supervision that is simple, direct, and
concrete (R. at 16).
This
RFC precluded Mr. Brown from returning to his past relevant
work. (R. at 23). At the hearing, the ALJ heard testimony
from a vocational expert (VE), who testified that a person
with Mr. Brown's age, education, work experience, and
with the RFC assigned by the ALJ, could perform other jobs in
the economy, such as power screwdriver operator, closing
machine tender, and compression molding machine tender. (R.
24). The ALJ therefore concluded that Mr. Brown was not
disabled. (R. at 25).
III.
Discussion
In this
appeal, Mr. Brown argues that the ALJ failed to fully and
fairly develop the record; failed to consider evidence that
detracted from his findings; failed to perform a proper
credibility determination; improperly weighed the opinion
evidence; and failed to present a proper hypothetical
question to the VE.
The
Court's task is limited to reviewing the
Commissioner's decision for legal error and determining
whether her decision is supported by substantial evidence on
the whole record. Brown v. Colvin, 825 F.3d 936, 939
(8th Cir. 2016) (citing Halverson v. Astrue, 600
F.3d 922, 929 (8th Cir. 2010)). Stated another way, the
decision must rest on enough evidence that “a
reasonable mind would find it adequate to support [the]
conclusion.” Halverson, 600 F.3d at 929. The
Court will not reverse the Commissioner's decision,
however, solely because there is evidence to support a
conclusion different from that reached by the Commissioner.
Pelkey v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 575, 578 (8th Cir.
2006).
Mr.
Brown contends that the ALJ failed to fairly and fully
develop the record, arguing that there is no opinion evidence
from a treating physician regarding his specific limitations.
Mr. Brown further argues that the opinion of Steve Shry,
Ph.D., requires clarification, because Dr. Shry failed to
disclose what collateral materials he reviewed in rendering
his opinion. (R. at 589). The Commissioner responds to this
point by arguing that the medical records are sufficient to
support the ALJ's opinion.
It is
settled precedent that an ALJ has a duty to fully and fairly
develop the record independent of the claimant's burden
to press his or her case. Combs v. Berryhill, 878
F.3d 642, 646 (8th Cir. 2017). “This duty includes the
responsibility of ensuring that the record includes evidence
from a treating physician, or at least an examining
physician, addressing the particular impairments at
issue.” Strongson v. Barnhart, 361 F.3d 1066,
1071-72 (8th Cir. 2004). However, the ALJ is obligated to
seek additional evidence only if a critical issue is
underdeveloped. Martise v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 909,
926-27 (8th Cir. 2011).
In this
case, there is no evidence from a treating or examining
source addressing the effect that Mr. Brown's physical
impairments had on his ability to work. The Commissioner
notes that Shuja Rasool, M.D., advised Mr. Brown to exercise,
suggesting that he was not as limited as he alleged. (R. at
600). A doctor's suggestion for a claimant to exercise is
insufficient to establish that the claimant can perform
...