# Geren v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · January 21, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10632219

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** January 21, 2022
- **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/10632219

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding a claimant’s subjective complaints cannot be discounted “solely because the objective medical evidence does not fully support them [the subjective complaints]”

## Opinion text

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

SUE E. GEREN PLAINTIFF

vs. Civil No. 2:21-cv-02116

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION DEFENDANT

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Sue E. Geren (“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”) and a period of disability under Title II of the Act.
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) (2009), the Honorable P. K.
Holmes, III referred this case to this Court for the purpose of making a report and recommendation.
In accordance with that referral, and after reviewing the arguments in this case, this Court
recommends Plaintiff’s case be REVERSED AND REMANDED.
1. Background:
Plaintiff filed her disability application on July 14, 2018, alleging a disability beginning on
June 17, 2018. (Tr. 19).1 In her application, Plaintiff alleges being disabled due to blindness or
“low vision,” depression, anxiety, and a right wrist injury. (Tr. 269). Her application was denied

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. 8. These
references are to the page number of the transcript itself not the ECF page number.

1
initially on January 3, 2019, and her application was denied again upon consideration on June 6,
2019. (Tr. 19).
Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing, and this hearing request was granted. (Tr. 100-
139). This hearing was held in Fort Smith, Arkansas on August 5, 2020. Id. At this hearing,
Plaintiff was present and was represented by Michael Hamby. Id. Plaintiff and Vocational Expert
(“VE”) Marquita Miller testified at this hearing. Id.

On October 21, 2020, after the administrative hearing, the ALJ entered an unfavorable
decision denying Plaintiff’s DIB application. (Tr. 16-33). In this decision, the ALJ found Plaintiff
met the insured status requirements of the Act through September 30, 2022. (Tr. 21, Finding 1).
The ALJ found Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity (“SGA”) since her alleged
onset date of June 17, 2018. (Tr. 21-22, Finding 2).
The ALJ determined Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: right eye vision loss,
retinal edema, inflammation of choroid, panuveitis, depression, PTSD, migraines, fibromyalgia, and
obesity. (Tr. 22, Finding 3). The ALJ also determined Plaintiff did not have an impairment or
combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the requirements of any of the Listings

of Impairments in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Regulations No. 4 (“Listings”). (Tr. 22-24, Finding
4).
The ALJ determined Plaintiff was thirty-nine (39) years old, which is defined as a “younger
person” under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(c), on her date last insured. (Tr. 28, Finding 7). As for her
education, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had at least a high school education. (Tr. 28, Finding 8).
In this decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and determined her
Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”). (Tr. 24-27, Finding 5). First, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s

2
subjective complaints and found they were not entirely valid. Id. Second, the ALJ determined
Plaintiff had the following RFC:
After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the
claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20
CFR 404.1567(b) except the claimant can occasionally climb ramps and stairs,
balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. The claimant must avoid hazards such as
motor vehicles, no ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, and moving mechanical parts. Due
to vision loss in the right eye, nothing comes from the right side. The claimant can
perform simple, routine, repetitive tasks with supervision that is simple, direct, and
concrete, and social interaction that is incidental to the work performed.

Id.
The ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s Past Relevant Work (“PRW”) and determined Plaintiff was
unable to perform any of her PRW. (Tr. 27-28, Finding 6). The ALJ then considered whether
Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national
economy. (Tr. 28-29, Finding 10). The VE testified at the administrative hearing regarding this
issue. Id. Based upon that testimony, the ALJ determined a hypothetical person with Plaintiff’s
limitations retained the capacity to work as a marker (light, unskilled) with 120,000 such jobs
nationally; housekeeping cleaner (light, unskilled) with 200,000 such jobs nationally; and a routing
clerk (light, unskilled) with 90,000 such jobs nationally. (Tr. 28). In accordance with this finding,
the ALJ determined Plaintiff was not under a disability, as defined by the Act, at any time from June
17, 2018, her alleged onset date, through the date of her decision or through October 21, 2020. (Tr.
29, Finding 11).
Plaintiff sought review with the Appeals Council. (Tr. 1-10). On June 21, 2021, the Appeals
Council denied this request for review. Id. On June 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this
case. ECF No. 1. Both Parties have filed appeal briefs. ECF Nos. 10-11. This matter is now ripe
for consideration.
3
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 wouldhave
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
4
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:
With her appeal brief, Plaintiff raises one claim for reversal: The ALJ’s decision is not
supported by substantial evidence as it relates to the Plaintiff’s physical limitations as set forth in
the Step Four and Five Analysis of her RFC. ECF No. 10. Upon review of this claim, the Court

finds the ALJ’s Step Four evaluation and her evaluation of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints is not
supported by substantial evidence in the record; thus, the Court will only consider this issue.
In assessing the subjective complaints 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 factors to

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 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.
5
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 complaints
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 complaints.

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 complaints 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 complaints
“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 complaint of pain, the ALJ must make a specific

determination, 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 did not comply with the requirements of Polaski. Instead, the
ALJ based her evaluation of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints upon the fact Plaintiff’s subjective

complaints were not supported by her medical records. (Tr. 24-27). In her opinion, the ALJ
summarized Plaintiff’s medical records and discounted Plaintiff’s subjective complaints because
6
they were not supported by the objective medical records:
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned fins the claimant has the above residual
functional capacity assessment, which is supported by the objective evidence and the
medical findings established in the record. To the extent that the claimant alleged
being unable to work within the residual functional capacity, the undersigned finds
the allegations no fully consistent with the evidence based upon the above
discussions.

(Tr. 27).
Based upon this review, the Court finds the ALJ discounted Plaintiff’s subjective complaints
based upon her medical records. See Polaski, 739 F.2d at 1322 (holding a claimant’s subjective
complaints cannot be discounted “solely because the objective medical evidence does not fully
support them [the subjective complaints]”). Accordingly, because the ALJ provided an insufficient
basis for discounting Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, this case must be reversed and remanded.
4. Conclusion:
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that the decision of the ALJ, denying benefits
to Plaintiff, is not supported by substantial evidence and recommends it be REVERSED AND
REMANDED.
The Parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation
in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The Parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990).
ENTERED this 21st day of January 2022.

Barry A. Bryant
/s/
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10632219. Public record. Not legal advice.