Case: 1:14-cv-00169-SPM Doc. #: 30 Filed: 03/01/16 Page: 1 of 11 PageID #: 1424 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION VICKIE SANDERS, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 1:14CV169SPM SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. JUDGMENT In accordance with the oral opinion entered on February 25, 2016, a transcript of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that under 42 U.S.C. 1383(c(3 and Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g, the final decision of the defendant Commissioner of Social Security denying disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits to Plaintiff Vickie Sanders is REVERSED. This action is remanded to the Defendant for further proceedings consistent with the court s Oral Opinion. Dated March 1, 2016. SHIRLEY PADMORE MENSAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:14-cv-00169-SPM Doc. #: 30 Filed: 03/01/16 Page: 2 of 11 PageID #: 1425 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION VICKIE SANDERS, Plaintiff, VS. No. 1:14-CV-169(SPM CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. FOR THE PLAINTIFF: OPINION OF THE COURT BY THE HONORABLE SHIRLEY P. MENSAH FEBRUARY 25, 2016 ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI JEFFREY J. BUNTEN 211 S. Broadway, Suite 2400 St. Louis, MO 63102 (314 241-9666 FOR THE DEFENDANT: SARAH E. PRESTON SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Office of the General Counsel Region VII, Federal Office Building 601 E. Twelfth Street, Suite 535 Kansas City, MO 64106-2898 (816 936-5931 Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography; transcript produced by computer. DEBORAH A. KRIEGSHAUSER, FAPR, RMR, CRR Federal Official Court Reporter 111 South Tenth Street, Third Floor St. Louis, MO 63102 (314 244-7449
Case: 1:14-cv-00169-SPM Doc. #: 30 Filed: 03/01/16 Page: 3 of 11 PageID #: 1426 2 1 (PROCEEDINGS BEGAN AT 3:30 PM. 2 THE CLERK: All rise. This Honorable Court is again 3 in session. 4 THE COURT: Good afternoon. 5 MS. PRESTON: Good afternoon, Your Honor. 6 MR. BUNTEN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. 7 THE COURT: All right. We are back on the record in 8 the case of Vickie Sanders versus Carolyn Colvin, the Acting 9 Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. This is 10 Case No. 1:14-CV-169(SPM. 11 Counsel, please announce your presence for the 12 record. 13 MR. BUNTEN: This is Jeffrey J. Bunten, attorney for 14 the Plaintiff. 15 MS. PRESTON: This is Sarah Preston, attorney for 16 Defendant. 17 THE COURT: All right. The Plaintiff in this case is 18 appealing the Social Security Administration's denial of her 19 applications for disability insurance benefits and 20 supplemental security income. We had oral argument this 21 morning at which the chief issues raised in Plaintiff's appeal 22 were addressed. Those issues are whether the RFC is supported 23 by some medical evidence as required in cases such as Nevland, 24 Lauer and Singh; whether the ALJ failed to adequately assess 25 the Plaintiff's credibility; and whether the hypothetical
Case: 1:14-cv-00169-SPM Doc. #: 30 Filed: 03/01/16 Page: 4 of 11 PageID #: 1427 3 1 posed to the vocational expert captured the concrete 2 consequences of Plaintiff's impairments. The Commissioner did 3 concede during oral argument that if the RFC is not supported 4 by substantial evidence, then the hypothetical posed to the 5 vocational expert is also -- is also inadequate. 6 I have considered all of the arguments made this 7 morning during oral argument as well as the administrative 8 record, the written submissions of the parties, and I am ready 9 to rule. 10 Based on everything that I've reviewed, I am going to 11 reverse the Commissioner's decision and remand this case for 12 further proceedings. 13 I agree with the Plaintiff that the ALJ's decision is 14 not supported by substantial evidence because the RFC does not 15 appear to be supported by some medical evidence of the 16 Plaintiff's ability to function in the workplace in light of 17 her medical impairments. 18 When this case was remanded back to the Commissioner 19 from this Court by Judge Jean Hamilton in February of 2012, 20 Judge Hamilton held that with respect to Plaintiff's physical 21 impairment, the ALJ, quote, "provided no rationale for his RFC 22 determination," and I supplied the "RFC." And that's at 23 Transcript 899 of the record. 24 After outlining a number of findings from the medical 25 records, Judge Hamilton wrote, quote, "The medical record
Case: 1:14-cv-00169-SPM Doc. #: 30 Filed: 03/01/16 Page: 5 of 11 PageID #: 1428 4 1 reveals that Plaintiff received regular treatment for her back 2 pain and migraine headaches," closed quote. Noting that 3 Plaintiff's treatment consisted of epidural injections and 4 prescriptions for multiple narcotic pain medications, she 5 concluded that, quote, "Significant findings were observed on 6 objective testing, including CT scans and MRIs, and on 7 physical examination. Plaintiff's impairments, therefore, 8 would be expected to produce significant pain and 9 limitations," closed quote. And that's at 900 of the 10 administrative record. 11 As Judge Hamilton correctly noted, under Nevland, 12 quote, "an ALJ has a duty to obtain medical evidence that 13 addresses the claimant's ability to function in the 14 workplace," closed quote. In light of the foregoing 15 significant medical findings, Judge Hamilton held that in the 16 absence of any opinion from a physician, treating or 17 consulting, regarding Plaintiff's ability to function in the 18 workplace with her physical impairments, the ALJ's Residual 19 Functional Capacity assessment fails Lauer's test that the 20 Residual Functional Capacity be supported by some medical 21 evidence. 22 Notwithstanding Judge Hamilton's ruling that a 23 medical opinion about Plaintiff's ability to function in the 24 workplace was necessary to comply with Lauer, given the 25 significant medical findings, on remand, the Commissioner did
Case: 1:14-cv-00169-SPM Doc. #: 30 Filed: 03/01/16 Page: 6 of 11 PageID #: 1429 5 1 not obtain an opinion from any medical source, treating or 2 consulting. Rather, Judge Hanekamp's opinion explicitly 3 states that his RFC assessment, like the prior judges, was 4 based upon (1 the fact that no doctor or other 5 similarly-qualified person ever said Plaintiff could not do 6 activities within the RFC; (2 the objective medical evidence; 7 (3 the Judge's own belief that Plaintiff does not have 8 clinical signs typically associated with chronic severe 9 musculoskeletal pain of the back, knees, feet or hips; (4 the 10 fact that the treatment offered Plaintiff was relatively 11 conservative; specifically Judge Hanekamp found no surgery had 12 been offered for Plaintiff's back, knees or hips; and (5 13 Claimant's poor credibility with respect to the level of 14 activity she's capable of in light of her impairments. 15 I recognize the Plaintiff has the burden to prove 16 that she is disabled. I'm also aware, as we discussed on the 17 record during oral argument, that the Eighth Circuit and this 18 Court have previously held that objective medical findings can 19 be sufficient to constitute medical evidence in support of a 20 finding that a claimant can perform light or medium work. 21 However, after reviewing the cases that have reached that 22 conclusion, I find that they are distinguishable from this 23 case. 24 Specifically during the recess, I reviewed cases 25 such as Steed versus Astrue, Flynn versus Astrue, and
Case: 1:14-cv-00169-SPM Doc. #: 30 Filed: 03/01/16 Page: 7 of 11 PageID #: 1430 6 1 Thornhill v. Colvin. The medical findings in those cases were 2 not nearly as significant as those here. In Steed, for 3 example, even though the medical evidence was silent with 4 regard to work-related restrictions, such as the length of 5 time the plaintiff in that case could sit, stand and walk and 6 what amount of weight she could carry, the Eighth Circuit 7 upheld the ALJ's finding that the plaintiff could perform 8 light work based on largely mild or normal objective findings 9 regarding her back condition. 10 Similarly, in Flynn, a 2008 case, the Eighth Circuit 11 held that the physician's observations that the claimant had 12 normal muscle strength and mobility constituted medical 13 evidence supporting the ALJ's conclusion that the claimant 14 could lift 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. 15 And in a 2013 decision, District Judge Carol Jackson 16 in this court held in Thornhill v. Colvin that the medical 17 records showing that physical examinations have been 18 essentially unremarkable and revealed normal independent gait 19 with no evidence of spine or joint abnormality or range of 20 motion limitation or muscle tenderness constituted medical 21 evidence in support of a finding that the claimant in that 22 case could perform medium work. 23 We don't have such mild findings in this case. Here, 24 as Judge Hamilton's opinion points out and as Plaintiff 25 argued, there are significant medical findings. Those
Case: 1:14-cv-00169-SPM Doc. #: 30 Filed: 03/01/16 Page: 8 of 11 PageID #: 1431 7 1 findings include a moderate disk bulge that, quote, 2 "obliterates the space with the nerve root, a herniated disk 3 with radiculopathy and with a neurologic deficit and moderate 4 spinal canal stenosis." These are conditions that would be 5 expected to produce significant pain and limitations. 6 Indeed, there is significant evidence in this record 7 that Ms. Sanders was consistently found to have a limited 8 range of motion or range of motion with pain. And on physical 9 examination she was also found to have muscle weakness or 10 tenderness at various points in time. 11 Given those findings, it was not sufficient under 12 these circumstances for the ALJ to do what Judge Hanekamp did; 13 i.e., presume that Plaintiff could function at a light work 14 capacity simply because no doctor said she could not. Rather, 15 under Nevland, it was incumbent on the Commissioner to obtain 16 some medical evidence of Plaintiff's ability to function in 17 the workplace in light of those significant medical findings. 18 The Commissioner argued in its brief and at oral 19 argument that the ALJ's credibility analysis was adequate and 20 supports the RFC determination. I agree with the Commissioner 21 that there was ample evidence in the record to support the 22 ALJ's conclusion that the Plaintiff was not entirely credible, 23 including evidence that Plaintiff engaged in drug-seeking 24 behavior and at times may have exaggerated her symptoms. 25 However, as this Court and other courts within the Eighth
Case: 1:14-cv-00169-SPM Doc. #: 30 Filed: 03/01/16 Page: 9 of 11 PageID #: 1432 8 1 Circuit have held, a credibility finding cannot substitute for 2 medical evidence to support a finding that a claimant has a 3 particular Residual Functional Capacity to work. In other 4 words, there may well be substantial evidence to support the 5 Commissioner's conclusion that Plaintiff's claims about the 6 severity of her limitations are not entirely credible. 7 However, given the significant medical findings in this case, 8 without an opinion from a qualified source, the conclusion 9 that Plaintiff can function at the capacity described by 10 Judge Hanekamp is not supported by substantial evidence. 11 I find that the reasoning from Judge Hamilton's 12 earlier decision applies with equal force here because the 13 deficiency identified by Judge Hamilton was not addressed by 14 Judge Hanekamp or the Commissioner. I am remanding this case 15 for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision. 16 So for all of the reasons stated in this oral opinion 17 as well as the reasons set out in the Plaintiff's brief and 18 stated on the record at oral argument, the Commissioner's 19 decision is not supported by substantial evidence as a whole. 20 As such, I will reverse the decision of the Social Security 21 Administration and remand this case for further proceedings. 22 I will issue a judgment consistent with this opinion 23 and will attach a transcription of this oral opinion to the 24 judgment so the parties have a written record of the reasons 25 for my decision.
Case: 1:14-cv-00169-SPM Doc. #: 30 Filed: 03/01/16 Page: 10 of 11 PageID #: 91433 1 Thank you, both, very much and I hope you have a 2 great afternoon. 3 MR. BUNTEN: Thank you, Your Honor. 4 MS. PRESTON: Thank you, Your Honor. 5 (Hearing adjourned at 3:46 PM. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Case: 1:14-cv-00169-SPM Doc. #: 30 Filed: 03/01/16 Page: 11 of 11 PageID #: 101434 CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER I, Deborah A. Kriegshauser, Federal Official Realtime Court Reporter, in and for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, do hereby certify that pursuant to Section 753, Title 28, United States Code, that the foregoing is a true and correct transcript of the stenographically-reported proceedings held in the above-entitled matter and that the transcript page format is in conformance with the regulations of the Judicial Conference of the United States. Dated this 29th day of February, 2016. /s/ Deborah A. Kriegshauser DEBORAH A. KRIEGSHAUSER, FAPR, RMR, CRR FEDERAL OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER