# Dunn v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · April 13, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10012192

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** April 13, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10012192

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing an ALJ may discount a “claimant’s subjective complaints . . . if there are inconsistencies in the record as a whole”

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION

KADENA DUNN PLAINTIFF

vs. Civil No. 2:22-cv-02093

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Kadena Dunn (“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 her application for
Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Act.
The Parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge to conduct any and all
proceedings in this case, including conducting the trial, ordering the entry of a final judgment, and
conducting all post-judgment proceedings. ECF No. 5. Pursuant to this authority, the Court issues
this memorandum opinion and orders the entry of a final judgment in this matter.
1. Background:
Plaintiff filed her disability application on March 12, 2019. (Tr. 11).1 In her application,
Plaintiff alleges being disabled due to fibromyalgia, erythema nodosum, gastroparesis, diabetes,
depression, and hearing issues. (Tr. 216). Plaintiff alleged an onset date of August 22, 2018. (Tr.
11). Plaintiff’s application was denied initially and again upon reconsideration. Id.

1 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.
Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on her denied application, and this hearing
request was granted. (Tr. 138-179). This hearing was held on September 22, 2020. (Tr. 68-95).
At this hearing, Plaintiff was present, and represented by Davis Duty. Id. Plaintiff and Vocational
Expert (“VE”), Montie Lumpkin testified at the hearing. Id.
Following the administrative hearing, on November 3, 2020, the ALJ entered an unfavorable
decision. (Tr. 11-27). In this decision, the ALJ determined Plaintiff met the insured status of the

Act through December 31, 2023. (Tr. 13, Finding 1). The ALJ also found Plaintiff had not engaged
in substantial gainful activity (“SGA”) since August 22, 2018. (Tr. 13, Finding 2).
The ALJ determined Plaintiff had the severe impairments of fibromyalgia, atypical
connective tissue disease, gastritis, gastroparesis, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), obesity,
depression, anxiety. (Tr. 14, Finding 3). Despite being severe, the ALJ determined those
impairments did not meet or medically equal the requirements of any of the Listings of Impairments
in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (“Listings”). (Tr. 16, Finding 4).
The ALJ considered Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and determined her RFC. (Tr. 18-25).
The ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and found the claimed limitations were not

entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record. Id. The ALJ also
determined Plaintiff retained the RFC to perform light work except she could perform simple,
routine, repetitive tasks with few variables and little judgment required; required supervision that is
simple, direct, and concrete; and could handle social interaction that is incidental to the work
performed. Id.
The ALJ then evaluated Plaintiff’s Past Relevant Work (“PRW”). (Tr. 25, Finding 6). The
ALJ determined Plaintiff was not capable of performing her PRW. Id. However, the ALJ found
there were jobs in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform. (Tr.
26, Finding 10). With the help of the VE, the ALJ found Plaintiff could perform the representative
occupations of (1) power screwdriver operator with approximately 292,271 jobs in the nation, (2)
injection molding machine tender with approximately 13,260 jobs in the nation, and (3) shipping
and receiving weigher with approximately 9,456 jobs in the nation. Id. Based upon this finding,
the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not been disabled from August 22, 2018, through the date of the
decision. (Tr. 27, Finding 11).
On June 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed the present appeal. ECF No. 1. Both Parties have filed

appeal briefs. ECF Nos. 13, 15. 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 her appeal brief, Plaintiff claims the ALJ’s disability decision is not supported by
substantial evidence in the record. ECF No. 13. In making this claim, Plaintiff raises the following
arguments for reversal: (A) the ALJ erred in the RFC determination, (B) the ALJ erred in assessing
her subjective allegations, and (C) the ALJ erred at Step 5. Id. The Court will consider each of
these arguments.
A. RFC Determination
In this matter, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the RFC to perform light work with
limitations. (Tr. 18). Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred in this RFC determination. ECF No. 13, Pgs.
13-19. However, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC determination.
Prior to Step Four of the sequential analysis in a disability determination, the ALJ is required
to determine a claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). This RFC determination must

be based on medical evidence that addresses the claimant’s ability to function in the workplace. See
Stormo v. Barnhart, 377 F.3d 801, 807 (8th Cir. 2004). The ALJ should consider “‘all the evidence
in the record’ in determining the RFC, including ‘the medical records, observations of treating
physicians and others, and an individual’s own description of his limitations.’” Stormo v. Barnhart,
377 F.3d 801, 807 (8th Cir. 2004) (quoting Krogmeier v. Barnhart, 294 F.3d 1019 (8th Cir. 2002)).
The Plaintiff has the burden of producing documents and evidence to support his or her claimed
RFC. See Cox, 160 F.3d at1206; 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). The mere fact a
claimant has a long list of medical conditions does not demonstrate that person is disabled; instead,
the RFC determination is a function-by-function analysis. See SSR 96-8P, 1996 WL 374184 (July

2, 1996). “The RFC assessment considers only functional limitations and restrictions that result
from an individual’s medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments, including
the impact of any related symptoms.” Id.
The ALJ, however, bears the primary responsibility for making the RFC determination and
for ensuring there is “some medical evidence” regarding the claimant’s “ability to function in the
workplace” that supports the RFC determination. Lauer v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 700, 703-04 (8th Cir.
2001). Furthermore, this Court is required to affirm the ALJ’s RFC determination if that
determination is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See McKinney v. Apfel,
228 F.3d 860, 862 (8th Cir. 2000).
Based upon this standard and a review of Plaintiff’s records and allegations in this case, the
Court cannot find Plaintiff has demonstrated having any greater limitations than those found by the
ALJ. The ALJ provided a thorough summary of Plaintiff’s medical records and subjective
complaints in this matter. The mere fact Plaintiff suffers from a number of impairments does not
demonstrate she has more limitations than those found in the RFC assessment above.
In her opinion, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s alleged impairments and discounted those she

found were not credible. (Tr. 18-25). The ALJ considered the results of objective diagnostic tests
and examination findings and discussed these in her decision. Id. The ALJ also considered the
findings of medical consultants and considered Plaintiff’s testimony and function reports in
assessing her RFC. Id.
Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC determination. Plaintiff has the burden of
establishing her claimed RFC. See Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 790 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting
Eichelberger v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 584, 590 (8th Cir. 2004)). Because Plaintiff has not met the
burden in this case and because the ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by sufficient medical
evidence, this Court finds the ALJ’s RFC determination should be affirmed.

B. Subjective Allegations
Plaintiff claims the ALJ erred in evaluating her subjective allegations of disability. ECF No.
13, Pgs. 19-20. 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

2 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
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 valid, the ALJ’s determination 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
complaints].” Polaski, 739 F.2d at 1322.
When discounting a claimant’s allegations of pain, the ALJ must make a specific evaluation

of a 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 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 ALJ fully complied with Polaski in her evaluation of Plaintiff’s
subjective allegations. (Tr. 18-25). Indeed, the ALJ opinion outlined her subjective allegations and

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.
noted inconsistencies between those allegations and the record. Id. The ALJ also noted her daily
activities and set forth reasons for finding them not as limiting as described by Plaintiff. Id.
Furthermore, the ALJ carefully summarized Plaintiff’s medical records and noted how she was
receiving treatment and medication for her impairments that appeared to be effective. Id. Based
upon the Court’s review, there is no basis for reversal on this issue. See, e.g., Guilliams v. Barnhart,
393 F.3d 798, 801 (8th Cir. 2005) (recognizing an ALJ may discount a “claimant’s subjective

complaints . . . if there are inconsistencies in the record as a whole”).
C. Step Five Determination
Plaintiff claims she cannot perform the jobs the VE identified at Step Five of the Analysis.
ECF No. 13, Pg. 20. Plaintiff claims the VE identified jobs she could not perform because the ALJ
provided an incomplete hypothetical to the VE. Id. However, as noted above, this Court cannot
find Plaintiff had limitations greater than those found by the ALJ. As such, this Court cannot find
the hypothetical to the VE was improper.
4. Conclusion:
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that the decision of the ALJ, denying benefits

to Plaintiff, is supported by substantial evidence, and should be affirmed. A judgment incorporating
these findings will be entered pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52 and 58.
ENTERED this 13th day of April 2023.

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10012192. Public record. Not legal advice.