Hutson v. Saul

E.D. Missouri

Hutson v. Saul

DecidedSeptember 13, 2021

Docket4:20-cv-00841

StatusUnknown

This text of Hutson v. Saul (Hutson v. Saul) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hutson v. Saul, (E.D. Mo. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

TAMMY LYNN HUTSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:20 CV 841 RWS ) KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ) Commissioner of ) Social Security Administration, ) ) Defendant.1 )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Tammy Lynn Hutson (“Hutson”) brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s (“Commissioner”) decision to deny her application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits. For the reasons explained below, I must affirm the decision. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Hutson filed a Title II application for disability insurance benefits and a Title XVI application for supplemental security income on August 17, 2017. The claims

1 Kilolo Kijakazi became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on July 9, 2021. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Kilolo Kijakazi should be substituted, therefore, for Andrew Saul as the defendant in this suit. No further action need be taken to continue this suit by reason of the last sentence of section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). were initially denied on October 25, 2017 and after reconsideration, denied again. Hutson filed a timely request for a hearing, which was held on March 26, 2019. The

ALJ issued his decision on June 6, 2019, finding that Hutson was not entitled to any benefits. Hutson appealed and the Appeals Council denied her request for review. Hutson then filed this case seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision.

In this action for judicial review, Hutson argues that the ALJ did not adequately consider her subjective pain complaints and that the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) he formulated was unsupported by medical evidence in the record. LEGAL STANDARD

To be eligible for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act, a plaintiff must prove that she is disabled. Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1217 (8th Cir. 2001); Baker v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 955 F.2d 552, 555

(8th Cir. 1992). The Social Security Act defines disability as the “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.”

42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). An individual will be declared disabled “only if [her] physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that [she] is not only unable to do [her] previous work but cannot, considering [her] age, education,

and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A). In determining whether a claimant is disabled, the Commissioner conducts a

five-step analysis. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; Pate-Fires v. Astrue, 564 F.3d 935, 942 (8th Cir. 2009). The Commissioner begins by deciding whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity. If the claimant is working, disability benefits

are denied. Next, the Commissioner decides whether the claimant has a “severe” impairment or combination of impairments, meaning that which significantly limits her ability to do basic work activities. If the claimant’s impairment(s) is not severe, then she is not disabled. The Commissioner then determines whether the claimant’s

impairment(s) meets or equals one of the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. If the claimant’s impairment(s) is equivalent to one of the listed impairments, she is conclusively disabled. At the fourth step, the

Commissioner establishes whether the claimant can perform her past relevant work. If so, the claimant is not disabled. Finally, the Commissioner evaluates various factors to determine whether the claimant is capable of performing any other work in the national economy. If not, the claimant is declared disabled and is entitled to

disability benefits. In reviewing the ALJ’s denial of Social Security disability benefits, my role is limited to determining whether the Commissioner’s findings comply with the

relevant legal requirements and are supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Pate-Fires, 564 F.3d at 942. “Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance but is enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to

support the Commissioner’s conclusion.” Id. In determining whether the evidence is substantial, I must consider evidence that both supports and detracts from the Commissioner’s decision. Id. I must “defer heavily to the findings and conclusions

of the Social Security Administration.” Hurd v. Astrue, 621 F.3d 734, 738 (8th Cir. 2010) (internal citation omitted). I may not reverse a decision that is supported by substantial evidence in the record, even if substantial evidence in the record supports a contrary outcome, or if I would have decided the case differently in the first

instance. Johnson v. Astrue, 628 F.3d 991, 992 (8th Cir. 2011). ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD With respect to the medical records and other evidence of record, I adopt

Hutson’s recitation of facts set forth in her Statement of Uncontroverted Material Facts, to the extent that they do not directly conflict with the Commissioner’s Statement of Uncontroverted Material Facts and are supported by the record. Specific facts will be discussed as needed to address the parties’ arguments.

The medical records in this case date back to August 5, 2015, when Hutson had a CT scan of her chest, which revealed minimal apical pleural thickening, T8 compression fracture (“most likely chronic”), and possibility of hydronephrosis,

especially on the left side. (Tr. 271.) She was diagnosed with acute colitis during an emergency room visit on October 8, 2015, after a CT scan of her abdomen and pelvis revealed mild transverse and left colitis and bilateral intrarenal calculi

measuring up to 8 mm on the left and 4 mm on the right. (Tr. 392-93.) She received prescriptions for Flagyl, Cipro, Norco, and Phenergan and was instructed to follow up with her primary care physician. (Tr. 394.) A few days later, she visited Dr.

Sequita Morris, who addressed Hutson’s abdominal pain as well as ear pain. (Tr. 281.) Dr. Morris noted that Hutson “cannot afford a colonoscopy, but if [pain continues] then she really does need one.” (Tr. 281.) Hutson visited the emergency room again on December 22, 2015, presenting

with more complaints of abdominal cramping and blood in her stool, plus complaints of nasal congestion, a cough, and facial pain. (Tr.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI