Franklin v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
ZACHARY FRANKLIN 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	CIVIL NO. 24-cv-06084-CDC
LELAND DUDEK,0F
1 Acting Commissioner 	DEFENDANT
Social Security Administration
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Zachary Franklin, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial
review of a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration (Commissioner)
denying his claims for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits (“DIB”), and
supplemental security income (“SSI”) benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act
(hereinafter “the Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). In this judicial review, the
Court must determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to
support the Commissioner’s decision. See 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g).
Plaintiff protectively filed his applications for DIB and SSI on July 29, 2021, and July 14,
2021. (Tr. 23). In his applications, Plaintiff alleged disability beginning on July 28, 2021, due to
Lyme disease, ADHD/ADD, anxiety, and PTSD. (Tr. 23, 274). An administrative hearing was on
August 30, 2023, at which Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified. (Tr. 40–63). A
vocational expert (“VE”) also testified. Id.
1 Leland Dudek has been appointed to serve as the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration, and is substituted as Defendant, pursuant to Rule 25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
Case 6:24-cv-06084-CDC Document 14 Filed 04/28/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
On November 22, 2023, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision. (Tr. 20–39). The ALJ
found Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Act through December 31, 2022. (Tr.
25). The ALJ found that, while Plaintiff had worked after the alleged onset date, none of his
work rose to the level of substantial gainful activity. (Tr. 25–26). The ALJ found Plaintiff
suffered from the severe impairments of unspecified polyarthritis and obesity, non-severe
impairments of Lyme disease, hyperlipidemia, seasonal allergies, infectious mononucleosis,
COVID, major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder, and no other medically
determinable impairments. (Tr. 26–28). The ALJ found that Plaintiff did not have an impairment,
or combination of impairments, that met or medically equaled the severity of any of the listed
impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (Tr. 14–16). The ALJ found that
Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform the full range of medium work
as defined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(c) and 416.967(c). (Tr. 29–31). The ALJ found Plaintiff had
no past relevant work. (Tr. 31). The ALJ acknowledged that a finding of “not disabled” was
directed by Medical-Vocational Rule 203.28 based upon Plaintiff’s age, education, work
experience, and RFC; but also considered the testimony of the VE that Plaintiff could perform
the representative occupations of dishwasher or floor waxer. (Tr. 32). Based on the testimony of
the VE, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was capable of making a successful adjustment to other
work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. Id. The ALJ found Plaintiff had
not been disabled as defined by the Act from July 28, 2021, through November 22, 2023, the
date of the decision. (Tr. 33).
Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this action. (ECF No. 2). This case is before the undersigned
pursuant to the consent of the parties. (ECF No. 5). Both parties have filed appeal briefs, and the
case is now ready for decision. (ECF Nos. 11, 13).
Case 6:24-cv-06084-CDC Document 14 Filed 04/28/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
This Court’s role is to determine whether the Commissioner’s findings are supported by
substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Ramirez v. Barnhart, 292 F. 3d 576, 583 (8th Cir.
2002). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance, but it is enough that a reasonable mind
would find it adequate to support the Commissioner’s decision. 	The ALJ’s decision must be
affirmed if the record contains substantial evidence to support it. Edwards v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d
964, 966 (8th Cir. 2003). 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 would have supported a contrary outcome, or because the Court would
have decided the case differently. 	Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2001). 	In
other words, 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. Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065, 1068 (8th Cir. 2000).
Plaintiff raises the following poinst on appeal: 1) whether the ALJ erred as a matter of
law by failing to account for any mental limitations in the RFC regarding Plaintiff’s mild mental
limitations, and by failing to expressly explain why such limitations were not included in the
RFC; and 2) whether ALJ erred in relying upon VE testimony which was based upon a
hypothetical that did not include all of Plaintiff’s limitations. (ECF No. 11). Defendant argues
the ALJ’s RFC findings did not conflict with finding Plaintiff had mild mental limitations at step
two, and that these findings can easily be harmonized. See Chismarich v. Berryhill, 888 F.3d 978
(8th Cir. 2018). Defendant also argues that the ALJ provided ample analysis at step two regarding
why mental limitations were not included in the RFC, including minimal treatment history for
mental impairments, treatment notes that his conditions were stable, and treatment notes which
indicated that Plaintiff’s mood, affect, insight/judgment, and memory were normal. (ECF No. 13,
Case 6:24-cv-06084-CDC Document 14 Filed 04/28/25 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
p. 3). Finally, Defendant argues that the ALJ’s hypothetical to the VE was appropriate as it need
only account for the limitations the ALJ accepted as true. (ECF No. 13, p. 4).
In this case, the ALJ’s treatment of the opinion evidence falls short of what is necessary.
20 C.F.R. §404.1520c requires an ALJ to consider the supportability and consistency of opinion
evidence. See Bonnett v. Kijakazi, 859 Fed.Appx. 19 (8th Cir. 2021) (unpublished) (per curium)
(citing Lucus v. Saul, 960 F.3d 1066, 1069-70 (8th Cir. 2020) (remanding where ALJ discredited
physician's opinion without discussing factors contemplated in Regulation, as failure to comply
with opinion-evaluation Regulation was legal error)); Pipkins v. Kijakazi, No. 1:20 CV 161 CDP,
2022 WL 218898 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 25, 2022) (finding that the ALJ's failure to “explain” and
“articulate” the supportability and consistency of medical opinion evidence was reversible error
even when the ALJ elsewhere adequately summarized the evidence of record, and it supported
the RFC determination).
While the ALJ does find persuasive the opinions of Nicolas Rio, Psy.D., and David Voss,
Ph.D., at step two, he does not discuss their supportability or consistency merely stating “[t]heir
determinations were considered and found persuasive based on objective evidence.” (Tr. 27). In
the RFC assessment the ALJ also gives very little attention to opinion evidence, stating that the
medical 	evidence 	was 	generally 	supportive 	of 	the 	prior 	administrative 	findings, 	without
addressing or weighing the supportability or consistency of these opinions. (Tr. 31). The Court
finds remand necessary for the ALJ to more clearly consider the Plaintiff’s RFC.
IV. 	Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial
evidence, and therefore, the denial of benefits to the Plaintiff should be reversed and this matter
Case 6:24-cv-06084-CDC Document 14 Filed 04/28/25 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
should be remanded to the Commissioner for further consideration pursuant to sentence four of
42 U.S.C. §405(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of April 2025.
/s/ 	.
HON. CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:24-cv-06084-CDC Document 14 Filed 04/28/25 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>