Barber v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
3:11-cv-03046
W.D. Ark.Aug 6, 2012Background
- Nicky Barber seeks review of the Commissioner’s denial of DIB and SSI under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
- Barber alleged PTSD, intermittent explosive disorder, borderline intellectual functioning, arthritis, DDD, burn injuries, hypertension, GERD, and vertigo as disabling conditions.
- Initial SSA applications were denied; after remands, a second hearing was held on remand in 2009.
- ALJ found Barber’s impairments severe but not disabling; RFC limited him to light work with specific muscular, postural, and social-contact constraints.
- VE testified Barber could perform work as an assembler and machine tenderer; court affirmed denial of benefits.
- The memorandum discusses credibility, RFC assessment, and reliance on medical and VE testimony as substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility under Polaski standard | Barber argues the ALJ failed to properly evaluate credibility. | Barber’s credibility was properly assessed using Polaski factors and inconsistencies in the record. | ALJ credibility findings supported by substantial evidence. |
| RFC adequacy regarding burn injuries and vertigo | RFC does not account for hand burns and vertigo limitations. | Evidence shows transient grip issues post-burn but no ongoing severe limitation; vertigo not disabling. | RFC adequately reflects documented limitations; supports denial. |
| Mental impairment treatment and credibility | Lack of formal mental health treatment undermines ALJ findings. | Lack of formal treatment is a significant factor, but not dispositive; medical record shows no deterioration. | Mental impairments considered severe but not disabling; substantial evidence supports denial. |
| Hypothetical to vocational expert | Hypothetical failed to include all relevant symptoms of PTSD, BIF, and arthritis. | Hypothetical appropriately described impairments and limitations; details need not name specific diagnoses. | VE testimony based on proper hypothetical; supports denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984) (credibility requires Polaski factors and explicit inconsistencies)
- Dunahoo v. Apfel, 241 F.3d 1033 (8th Cir. 2001) (ALJ may discount credibility with inconsistencies)
- Hogan v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 958 (8th Cir. 2001) (ALJ need not discuss every Polaski factor explicitly)
- Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742 (8th Cir. 2001) (affirming substantial evidence standard for credibility)
- Lacroix v. Barnhart, 465 F.3d 881 (8th Cir. 2006) (moderate limitations understood in agency paperwork)
- Howard v. Massanari, 255 F.3d 577 (8th Cir. 2001) (simple work negates need for explicit listing of diagnoses in hypothetical)
- Murphy v. Sullivan, 953 F.2d 383 (8th Cir. 1992) (financial hardship considerations; but lack of low-cost treatment may weigh against disability)