Filed: Jun. 29, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 29, 2016
Summary: RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION BETH DEERE , Magistrate Judge . Instructions. The following recommended disposition was prepared for Judge James M. Moody Jr. A party to this dispute may file written objections to this recommendation. Objections must be specific and state the factual and/or legal basis for the objection. An objection to a factual finding must identify the finding and the evidence supporting the objection. Objections must be filed with the clerk of the court no later than 14 days f
Summary: RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION BETH DEERE , Magistrate Judge . Instructions. The following recommended disposition was prepared for Judge James M. Moody Jr. A party to this dispute may file written objections to this recommendation. Objections must be specific and state the factual and/or legal basis for the objection. An objection to a factual finding must identify the finding and the evidence supporting the objection. Objections must be filed with the clerk of the court no later than 14 days fr..
More
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
BETH DEERE, Magistrate Judge.
Instructions. The following recommended disposition was prepared for Judge James M. Moody Jr. A party to this dispute may file written objections to this recommendation. Objections must be specific and state the factual and/or legal basis for the objection. An objection to a factual finding must identify the finding and the evidence supporting the objection. Objections must be filed with the clerk of the court no later than 14 days from the date of this recommendation.1 The objecting party must serve the opposing party with a copy of an objection. Failing to object within 14 days waives the right to appeal questions of fact.2 If no objections are filed, Judge Moody may adopt the recommended disposition without independently reviewing all of the record evidence.
Background. Debra A. Creek seeks judicial review of the denial of her second application for social security disability benefits.3 Ms. Creek last worked as an adjunct professor at Arkansas Tech University.4 She stopped working in May 2012. She based disability on anemia, herniated discs in the neck, anxiety, and depression.5
The Commissioner's decision. The ALJ identified degenerative disc disease, obesity, and affective disorder as severe impairments.6 The ALJ determined the impairments limited Ms. Creek to some simple light work.7 The ALJ questioned a vocational expert, determined work exists that Ms. Creek could do, and denied the application.8
After the Commissioner's Appeals Council denied a request for review,9 the decision became a final decision for judicial review.10 Ms. Creek filed this case to challenge the decision.11 This recommendation explains why the court should affirm the decision.
Ms. Creek's allegations. Ms. Creek complains about the development of the record, and she contends the record required medical opinions by treating sources. She challenges the determination that she could do light work, because the determination relied on medical opinions by non-treating sources. She suggests the ALJ relied on inaccurate vocational evidence.12
Applicable legal principles. The court must determine whether substantial evidence supports the decision and whether the ALJ made a legal error.13 For substantial evidence to exist, a reasonable mind must accept the evidence as adequate to show Ms. Creek could do some light work and that work exists that she could do.14
"Light work involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds."15 The ALJ placed the following limits on Ms. Creeks ability to perform light work: (1) occasional overhead work with the arms; (2) occasional handling objects with the non-dominant hand; and (3) simple, routine, repetitive tasks, in an environment with incidental social contact and simple, direct, concrete supervision.16 A reasonable mind would accept the evidence as adequate for the following reasons:
1. Medical evidence established no disabling physical symptoms. A claimant must prove disability with medical evidence; allegations are not enough.17 Ms. Creek complained primarily about disabling pain, but medical evidence showed no reason for such severe pain. Diagnostic imaging of the cervical spine showed some degenerative changes: a small central disc protrusion with small bone spurs at level C4/5 and a broad-based bone spur at level C5/6 causing "moderate right foraminal narrowing."18 Foraminal narrowing at level C5/6 supported Ms. Creek's complaint about neck pain, radiating to the left shoulder into the left arm.19
Ms. Creek saw a pain management specialist on a regular basis. According to the pain specialist, pain medication and anti-depressants provided adequate pain control.20 Ms. Creek had anemia when she applied for disability benefits.21 Agency medical experts opined that anemia and degenerative changes in the cervical spine limited Ms. Creek to light work involving occasional overhead work and occasional handling with the left arm.22 A reasonable mind would accept the evidence as adequate, because that is the type of work the ALJ required.
2. Medical evidence established no disabling mental symptoms. For a brief time, Ms. Creek sought mental health treatment. Therapy sessions focused on the passing of Ms. Creek's first husband, issues with her parents, and financial concerns. According to Ms. Creek, medication and counseling improved her mental symptoms.23 Symptoms that can be controlled by treatment are not considered disabling.24 A reasonable mind would accept the evidence as adequate, because the ALJ accounted for mental symptoms by requiring simple, routine, repetitive tasks, involving incidental social contact and simple, direct, concrete supervision.
3. The record provided sufficient information to determine disability. Ms. Creek contends that the ALJ should have obtained a medical opinion from a treating provider, but an ALJ must seek such evidence "only if a crucial issue is undeveloped."25 Ms. Creek's allegations placed anemia, herniated discs in the neck, anxiety, and depression at issue. Treatment records addressed those issues. Ms. Creek later complained about pain in her neck, back, left elbow, and joints.26 The ALJ responded by ordering an orthopedic exam and diagnostic imaging. The exam and the imaging provided evidence about the musculoskeletal complaints.
During the orthopedic exam, Ms. Creek demonstrated diminished ranges of motion in the lumbar spine and neck, but she could walk normally and squat.27 Diagnostic imaging showed minimal degenerative changes in the lumbar spine and early arthritis in the left knee.28 According to the examiner, Ms. Creek could not return to her teaching job due to chronic pain and depression.29
Ms. Creek's pain specialist opined that depression, anxiety, insomnia, and obesity contributed to chronic pain.30 According to the specialist, Ms. Creek should help herself by increasing physical activity and decreasing food intake.31 Recommendations for increasing physical activity contradicted Ms. Creek's claim that she was unable to do any physical activity.32
4. Vocational evidence supports the decision. A vocational expert classified Ms. Creek's former work as an adjunct professor as highly skilled light work.33 Because the ALJ required simple tasks involving incidental social contact and direct supervision, the ALJ determined Ms. Creek could no longer do her past work. The ALJ asked the vocational expert about available work for a person with Ms. Creek's limitations. The vocational expert identified conveyor line bakery worker and research subject.34 The available jobs show work existed that Ms. Creek could do, regardless of whether such work existed where she lived, whether a job vacancy existed, or whether she would have been hired if she applied for work.35 A reasonable mind will accept the vocational evidence as adequate to show that work existed that Ms. Creek could do.
Conclusion and Recommended Disposition. Substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's decision. A reasonable mind would accept the evidence as adequate to support the decision. The ALJ made no legal error. For these reasons, the undersigned recommends DENYING Ms. Creek's request for relief (docket entry # 2) and AFFIRMING the Commissioner's decision.
