Barnes v. Social Security Administration
4:15-cv-00788
E.D. Ark.
Nov 2, 2016

Background

  • Plaintiff Trina Renee Barnes applied for Social Security disability benefits alleging onset September 22, 2011; ALJ denied benefits and Appeals Council denied review.
  • ALJ found severe impairments of L5–S1 protrusion without impingement and obesity, but not a listed impairment; RFC: sedentary with sit/stand option every 30 minutes, sit 6 hrs, stand/walk 2 hrs, occasional lifting 10 lbs.
  • ALJ relied on Vocational Expert (VE) testimony that Barnes could perform past relevant work as a customer service representative (DOT 249.362.026) given the RFC.
  • Medical record: intermittent back pain after a 2011 fall, MRI showing L5–S1 protrusion without impingement; exams generally showed normal strength, gait, negative straight‑leg raise, improvement with therapy; limited conservative treatment and periods off pain meds.
  • Treating PCP Dr. Joseph Nelson completed a March 2013 medical source statement imposing more restrictive limits (e.g., sit <4 hrs, stand/walk <2 hrs, lift <10 lbs, need to change positions frequently), but with no supporting clinical findings in that statement.
  • ALJ discounted but partially credited Dr. Nelson’s opinion, considered medication side effects (found no treatment reports of side effects), reviewed work history, and found no severe depressive disorder; Magistrate Judge recommended affirming the Commissioner.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether Barnes can perform past relevant work Barnes: sedentary CSR DOT does not include sit/stand option; thus VE testimony insufficient ALJ/Defendant: VE testimony valid because hypothetical captured concrete limitations including sit/stand; not all sedentary jobs are eliminated by sit/stand Court: VE testimony was substantial evidence; Barnes can perform past CSR; ALJ decision affirmed
Weight given to Dr. Nelson’s opinion Barnes: ALJ erred by discounting treating physician Nelson’s restrictive medical source statement ALJ: Nelson’s statement lacked supporting clinical findings, inconsistent with other treating/consultative records; ALJ incorporated some limitations anyway Court: ALJ permissibly gave limited weight to Nelson, incorporated parts into RFC; no reversible error
Consideration of medication side effects Barnes: ALJ failed to consider limiting side effects from medications ALJ: Record contains no complaints to providers about side effects; ALJ nonetheless noted possible drowsiness; Barnes was often not taking pain meds Court: No error—side effects not documented in treatment records and ALJ addressed them
Whether depression is a severe impairment at Step Two Barnes: Depression significantly limits work ability and should be found severe ALJ: Minimal psychiatric treatment, no regular meds or specialist care, activities inconsistent with disabling depression Court: Depression not shown to cause more than minimal work limitation; not severe

Key Cases Cited

  • Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of substantial evidence review)
  • Slusser v. Astrue, 557 F.3d 923 (8th Cir. 2009) (definition of substantial evidence)
  • Long v. Chater, 108 F.3d 185 (8th Cir. 1997) (court cannot reverse merely because evidence supports opposite conclusion)
  • Johnson v. Chater, 87 F.3d 1015 (8th Cir. 1996) (same principle on reviewing ALJ findings)
  • Wheeler v. Apfel, 224 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 2000) (VE may adjust job estimates for additional limitations)
  • Buckner v. Astrue, 646 F.3d 549 (8th Cir. 2011) (VE testimony is substantial evidence if hypothetical captures concrete consequences)
  • Miller v. Colvin, 784 F.3d 472 (8th Cir. 2015) (treating physician opinion controlling only if supported and consistent)
  • Hogan v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 958 (8th Cir. 2001) (treating source opinions evaluated in context of record)
  • Zeiler v. Barnhart, 384 F.3d 932 (8th Cir. 2004) (ALJ need not consider side effects not reported to treating physicians)
  • Gonzales v. Barnhart, 465 F.3d 890 (8th Cir. 2006) (claimant bears burden to show impairment is severe)
  • Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (1987) (definition of severe impairment at Step Two)
  • Page v. Astrue, 484 F.3d 1040 (8th Cir. 2007) (minimal-effect impairments do not satisfy Step Two)
  • Johnson v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1145 (8th Cir. 2001) (daily activities may undercut credibility)
Read the full case