Mayne v. Social Security Administration

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Steven Mayne, 	)
) 	ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
Plaintiffs, 	) 	MOTION FOR SUMMARY
) 	JUDGMENT AND GRANTING
) 	DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
vs. 	) 	SUMMARY JUDGMENT
)
Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social 	)
Security,1 ) 	Case No. 1:19-cv-019
)
Defendant. 	)
Plaintiff Steven Paul Mayne (“Mayne”) seeks judicial review of the Social Security
Commissioner's denial of his application for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") under Title II of
the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401-433, et. seq. Before the court are motions for summary
judgment filed by Mayne and Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security Administration
(“Commissioner”). For the reasons that follow, Mayne's motion is denied and the Commissioner's
motion is granted.
I. 	BACKGROUND
A. 	Procedural History
Mayne protectively filed an application for DIB on July 31, 2017, alleging an onset of
disability date of December 1, 2012. (Tr. 32, 164-167). His application was denied initially, upon
reconsideration, and, 	following an administrative hearing, by an Administrative Law Judge
1 Andrew Saul is now the Commissioner of Social Security and is automatically substituted as a
party pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). See also section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g) (explaining an action survives regardless of any change in the person occupying the office
of Commissioner of Social Security).
1
Case 1:19-cv-00019-CRH Document 18 Filed 08/03/20 Page 1 of 20

(“ALJ”). (Tr. 12-30, 31-96). The Appeals Counsel denied his subsequent request for review and
adopted the ALJ's order denying Mayne’s applications as the Commissioner's final decision. (Tr.
1-11).
Mayne filed the above-captioned action on January 23, 2019, seeking judicial review of the
Commissioner's decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Docket Nos. 1, 3-4). He filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment on May 28, 2019. (Docket No. 12). The Commissioner filed a combined
Motion for Summary Judgment and response to Mayne's motion on July 1, 2019. 	(Doc. Nos. 14-
16). Mayne filed a response to the Commissioner's motion on July 11, 2019. (Doc. No. 17). Thus,
the motions have been fully briefed and are ripe for the court’s consideration.
B. 	Personal History
1. 	Personal Data and Work History
Mayne was born in 1974. (Tr. 37). He is married and has three children. (Tr. 165) He has
completed two years of college. (Tr. 214). He served in the United States Air Force (“USAF”)
from July 28, 1992, until July 27, 1996, and from November 12, 1996, until November 30, 2012.
(Tr. 144, 188-189, 227, 238-239). 	While in the USAF he worked as a graphic artist, a missile
facility manager, and in safety. (Tr. 228, 239-241). The United States Veterans Administration
(“VA”) has deemed him disabled due to service-connected disabilities. (Tr. 188-189). 	As of July
12, 2018, his monthly VA benefit was $3,449.09. (Id.).
Mayne suffers from an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety, depressed mood with
obsessive compulsive disorder, a sleep arousal disorder, a temporomandibular joint disorder
("TMJ"), chronic migraines, Achilles' tendonitis, and IgA nephropathy. (Tr. 219-222). He also has
a history of shoulder, lower back, knee, and foot issues. (Id.).
2
Case 1:19-cv-00019-CRH Document 18 Filed 08/03/20 Page 2 of 20

2. 	Relevant Treatment History
Mayne underwent a Compensation and Pension Examination at the VA Hospital in Fargo,
North Dakota, on December 20, 2012, or approximately twenty days after his alleged disability onset
date. (Tr. 319). The results of Mayne’s physical examination were largely unremarkable. (Tr. 320-
321). The examiner noted that Mayne had full range of motion in all joints, no swelling or edema,
full motor function, a normal gait, and normal strength bilaterally. (Tr. 320, 321, 355, 360). Next,
the examiner noted that Mayne had no muscle atrophy, no signs or symptoms of radiculopathy, and
exercised regularly with no apparent problems. (Tr. 356-357). The examiner further noted that
Mayne’s lower back, knee, foot, shoulder, and kidney issues had not appreciably impacted his ability
to work but that Mayne was experiencing prostrating attacks of migraine headache pain multiple
times per month. 	(Tr. 322-329, 344-356, 367-372, 425). In regards to Mayne's mental health, the
examiner remarked that Mayne had a profile of depression, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive
symptomatology that had likely developed during the course of his military career due to a
combination of service and personal stressors and which had seriously compromised his ability to
deal with the normal demands of daily life. (Tr. 417-418).
On July 24, 2013, Mayne presented to the 5th Medical Group’s medical facility at the Minot
Air Force Base (hereafter referred to as “the Clinic”) for a followup regarding his anxiety
medications. (Tr. 647). He reported that his various medications were working okay, that he was
stable, and that he was having no back pain, limb pain, or muscle aches. 	(Tr. 648-49). 	On
examination, he appeared well oriented, had normal movement in all extremities, had normal motor
strength, balance, and gait and stance, and was capable of communicating his thoughts and feelings.
3
Case 1:19-cv-00019-CRH Document 18 Filed 08/03/20 Page 3 of 20

(Id.).
On October 29, 2013, Mayne returned to the Clinic for a followup regarding gastrointestinal
issues. (Tr. 642). During this visit he complained of jaw pain. (Id.). He was given, among other
things, a handout on various stretches to perform along with instructions to continue with his present
course of treatment and to follow up with dental. (Tr. 644).
On December 6, 2013, Mayne reported to the Clinic with eye irritation. 	(Tr. 635). He
reported no generalized pain, depression, sleep disturbances, or decreased functioning ability. (Tr.
636).
On February 7, 2014, Mayne returned to the Clinic with complaints of jaw pain. (Tr. 629).
He rated his pain as a 2 on a scale of 1 to 10. (Id.). He reported that a mouth guard given to him by
his dentist and the muscle relaxers he had been taking afforded him little relief. (Id.). No scans
were ordered and medications were prescribed. (Tr. 632). Mayne was directed to continue with his
present course of treatment. (Tr. 632).
On February 13, 2014, Mayne’s lumbar spine was X-rayed. (Tr. 462). The results of the x-
ray showed satisfactory alignment and “small nonspecific superior endplate spurs at L3-L5 without
significant degenerative changes otherwise.” (Id.).
On March 14, 2014, Mayne presented to Dr. Wayne Martinson for an initial psychiatric
evaluation. (Tr. 707-709). Dr. Martinson noted that Mayne had a long history of depression and
anxiety with symptoms of OCD and PTSD, was seemingly leading a constricted life, and was
experiencing an estimated two to three migraine headaches per week. (Tr. 709). His plan was to
increase Mayne's dosage of antidepressants, start Mayne on Propranolol in an effort to reduce the
severity and frequency of Mayne’s migraine headaches, and have Mayne follow up in three to four
4
Case 1:19-cv-00019-CRH Document 18 Filed 08/03/20 Page 4 of 20

weeks. (Id.).
On April 4, 2014, Mayne returned to Dr. Martinson, reporting that his overall mood was
"okay," that he felt somewhat more energetic, and that he believed his OCD symptomology had
improved. (Tr. 705). According to Dr. Martinson’s notes, Mayne brightened slightly as the session
progressed and was otherwise alert, attentive, appropriately engaged, and satisfied with his response
to medication (Tr. 705-706).
On April 17, 2014, Mayne returned to the Clinic. (Tr. 615). He complained of TMJ pain
and requested a referral to an oral maxofacial surgeon. (Tr. 615-16). In so doing he advised that
the oral appliances, muscle relaxants, and anti-inflammatories he had been using provided little
relief. 	(Id.) He further reported that, his TMJ pain aside, he 	had “good general overall
feeling/health” and remained capable on most days of engaging in moderate exercise for 30 minutes.
(Tr. 615-16). 	The results of his physical examination were unremarkable. 	(Tr. 617). 	He was
referred to an oral/maxillofacial surgeon and instructed to follow up in three months if he had any
problems. (Tr. 618).
On April 21, 2014, Mayne reported to Trinity Health for a follow up regarding his IgA
nephropathy. 	(Tr. 486). 	According to the clinical notes, Mayne had no aches and pains and
exhibited good range of motion. (Id.).
On May 12, 2014, Mayne reported to Trinity Health for an evaluation of possible allergic
reactions. (Tr. 481). According to the treatment notes, he was alert, oriented, clear of speech, and
coherent (Tr. 482-84). He reported no muscle pain and exhibited no decreased range of motion.
(Id.).
On July 14, 2014, Michael McMahon, D.D.S., examined Mayne on referral from the Clinic.
5
Case 1:19-cv-00019-CRH Document 18 Filed 08/03/20 Page 5 of 20

(Tr. 474). 	Dr. McMahon assessed Mayne with stress-induced myofascial pain dysfunction and
severe malocclusion. (Tr. 475). Dr. McMahon advised Mayne to consult with an orthodontist or,
in the alternative, to return to his dentist for fabrication of an occlusal splint for use at night. (Id.).
Mayne returned to Dr. Martinson on July 24, 2014, reporting that he was on the whole okay,
was not feeling anxious, and that the Propranolol had helped with his headaches. (Tr. 703-704).
According to the Dr. Martinson’s notes, Mayne was alert, attentive, cognitively organized,
meaningfully involved throughout the session and seemed to be doing well in terms of his PTSD and
anxiety. (Id.). Dr. Martinson adjusted Mayne’s medications and directed Mayne to follow up in two
months or as otherwise needed. (Tr. 704).
Mayne followed up with Dr. Martinson on October 10, 2014. (Tr. 701). He reported that
he was doing fairly well, had no problems with his depression, felt that his anxiety was under
control, did not feel his OCD was interfering with the major activities in his life, and his migraines
were, “for the most part, prevented.” 	(Id.). 	Dr. Martinson found him to be 	attentive and
cognitively organized. (Id.).
Mayne returned to Dr. Martinson on February 6, 2015. (Tr. 699-700). Dr. Martinson noted
in his progress notes that Mayne was experiencing some mild anxiety but that his psychiatric
problems otherwise seemed to be well controlled with medication. (Tr. 700).
Mayne returned to Dr. Martinson on July 16, 2015, reporting some mild depression as well
as anxiety, which he attributed to issues he was having with the VA regarding his care. (Tr. 697).
He did not want to adjust his medications as he had been tolerating them well and felt that they had
been helping with his anxiety, depression, and OCD. (Id.).
On August 13, 2015, Mayne underwent an MRI that had been ordered by Dr. McMahon to
6
Case 1:19-cv-00019-CRH Document 18 Filed 08/03/20 Page 6 of 20

rule out occult intracranial pathologies. (Tr. 470). The MRI results revealed nothing of concern.
(Id.).
Mayne again returned to Dr. Martinson on February 10, 2016. (Tr. 695). Although alert,
attentive, and cognitively organized, he exhibited symptoms, that in Dr. Martinson’s view, were
suggestive of a slow recurrence of depression. 	(Id.). Dr. Martinson discontinued Mayne’s Zoloft
and started him on Fluoxetine. (Id.).
On January 23, 2017, Mayne returned to the Clinic. (Tr. 547). He had no complaints of back
pain and had no issues with mobility. (Tr. 548-49). He reported that he was “engag[ing] in 150
minutes of moderate intensity exercise per week AND muscle strengthening activities 2 or more
times per week.” (Tr. 549). He was released without limitations and with instructions to follow up
as needed. (Tr. 550).
On February 16, 2017, Mayne presented to Trinity Health for a followup on his kidney
issues. (Tr. 465). The results of his physical examination were unremarkable. (Id.) He was told
to follow up annually. (Id.).
Mayne returned to the Clinic on March 10 and April 19, 2017. (Tr. 535-544). Each of the
examining physician noted Mayne’s lack of back pain, lack of any limitations on his mobility,
normal gait, normal affect and appropriate mood, 	orientation to time and place, and exercise
regimen. (Id.).
Mayne presented to Dr. Martinson for the last time on June 16, 2017. (Tr. 693-94). Noting
that Mayne was under a lot of stress at home and had experienced some recurrence of depression
and anxiety, Dr. Martinson increased his dosage of Fluoxetine and started him on Lorazepam. (Tr.
687-94).
7
Case 1:19-cv-00019-CRH Document 18 Filed 08/03/20 Page 7 of 20

Mayne was seen by Melissa M. Gartner, a licensed clinical counselor, on September 1, 2017,
for psychotherapy related to his diagnoses of depression and anxiety. 	(Tr. 818). 	According
Gartner’s notes, Mayne was struggling to cope with his son’s mental health issues as well as his
own. (Id.). Gartner’s plan was for him to return on a bi-weekly basis for psychotherapy. (Id.).
On October 18, 2017, Dr. Martinson completed a Mental Disorder Questionnaire Form in
which he described Mayne’s mental state as follows. 	(Tr. 688- 692). 	Mayne was generally
euthymic with increased distress and disyphoria when recounting past work-related trauma. (Id.).
Mayne’s symptoms of depression, anxiety, and OCD had improved but not remitted with current
care. (Id.). Mayne had intrusive flashbacks and intermittent dissociation related to his PTSD but
otherwise intact functioning. 	(Id.). 	Mayne had reported social withdrawal and exhibited some
limitations with respect to attention and task completion but had zero problems when it came to
attending to his personal needs. (Id.).
Meanwhile Mayne continued to visit Gartner on an almost biweekly basis until June 7, 2018,
when he canceled his appointment without explanation. (Tr. 819-55). 	In her notes from these
sessions, Gartner documented an improvement in Mayne’s symptoms along with the efforts
undertaken by Mayne to address the major stressors in his life. (Id.).
C. 	Assessments of Consulting Physicians
1. 	Dr. Gurcharan Singh’s Assessment
On September 25, 2017, Dr. Gurcharan Singh, a state agency medical consultant, issued a
report in which he opined that Mayne remained physically capable of working. (Tr. 77-79). Based
upon his review of the documentation provided to him, Dr. Singh concluded that, from a physical
standpoint, Mayne had the residual function capacity (“RFC”) to perform heavy/very heavy work.
8
Case 1:19-cv-00019-CRH Document 18 Filed 08/03/20 Page 8 of 20

(Tr. 78). 	In the process of reaching this conclusion, 	Dr. Singh acknowledged that Mayne’s
condition had resulted in some limitations on his ability to perform work-related activities. (Tr. 79).
Dr. Singh also acknowledged that there was insufficient vocational information to determine
whether Mayne could perform any of his past relevant work. 	(Id.). 	Dr. Singh nevertheless
determined that Mayne could adjust to other work based upon the available information. (Id.).
2. 	Dr. Joan Joynson’s Assessment
On October 30, 2017, Dr. Joan Joyson, another state agency medical consultant, issued a
report addressing Mayne’s mental RFC. (Tr. 75-77). Based upon her review of the information
available to her, she concluded that Mayne was not significantly limited when it came to carrying
out instructions, performing activities within a schedule, maintaining a schedule, sustaining a
routine, working in close proximity to others without distraction, making simple work-related
decisions, and maintaining socially appropriate behavior. (Tr. 75-76). She further concluded that
Mayne’s ability to maintain attention and concentration for extended periods, interact appropriately
with the general public, and get along with co-workers were moderately limited. (Tr. 75).
D. 	Administrative Hearing Testimony
1. 	Mayne
Mayne testified at the outset of the administrative hearing that his various physical and
mental illnesses in combination with the side effects of his prescribed medications and his efforts
to simultaneously cope with his son’s own mental health struggles had made it difficult to live. (Tr.
37-39). He then went on to testify that suicidal ideations were a recurring issue, that he experienced
episodes of extreme sadness on a weekly basis, and that his struggles with OCD were the source of
embarrassment for him and aggravation for his family. (Tr. 40-42).
9
Case 1:19-cv-00019-CRH Document 18 Filed 08/03/20 Page 9 of 20

When asked about his focus and energy, Mayne responded that his memory and ability to
concentrate are almost gone, that his thoughts often race, and that he experiences panic attacks with
greater frequency. (Tr. 45-48). When asked about his migraine headaches, he responded that they
can strike as frequently as once a week, are prostrating in nature, and require him to retire to a dark
room devoid of stimuli. (Id.).
In regards to his daily activities and interactions, Mayne testified that his social circle is
ostensibly limited to his wife and kids, that he does not like being around people and thus tends to
avoid them, that he does not really feel anything and is not necessarily prone to engage with others,
that he does not “keep up” with himself due to forgetfulness and/or indifference, and that his
condition has steadily worsened over time. (Tr. 51-54).
Mayne concluded by testifying that his weight tends to fluctuate, that he finds it hard to walk
due to bursitis in both knees and a broken toe that did not heal correctly, that his ankles swell, that
he tries to stay off of and elevate his feet, and that he tries to avoid doing too much with his right
arm on account of his shoulder impingement. (Tr. 55-57, 64).
2. 	Vocational Expert
When examining the vocational expert, the ALJ inquired whether a hypothetical individual
of Mayne’s age, education, and vocational background could perform Mayne’s past relevant work
if he: (a) could lift/carry twenty pounds occasionally and ten pound frequently; (b) could sit up to
six hours in an eight-hour workday; (c) could stand and work up to six hours in an eight-hour
workday; (d) could occasionally reach overhead use hand controls with his right upper extremity;
(e) could occasionally use foot controls with the left lower extremity; (f) could understand,
remember, and carry out simple work instructions; and (g) could occasionally interact with
10
Case 1:19-cv-00019-CRH Document 18 Filed 08/03/20 Page 10 of 20

supervisors, coworkers, and the general public. (Doc. No. 59). The vocational expert responded that
such an individual would not be capable of performing work as heavy has he had in the past. (Id.).
After the vocational expert had responded to the ALJ's hypothetical, Mayne’s counsel was
afforded an opportunity for examination. Counsel proceeded to ask the vocational expert in a series
of questions whether three unscheduled absences of work per month, an inability to maintain focus
and concentration for two-hour blocks of time, intrusive thoughts and repetitive behaviors, an
expected twenty percent decrease in productivity, and the inability to adhere to a strict work
schedule would preclude competitive employment. (Tr. 61 and 63). In each instance the vocational
expert responded in the affirmative. (Id.).
E. 	ALJ's Decision
The ALJ issued her written decision denying Mayne’s application on October 9, 2018. (Tr.
15-26). 	When reviewing the application, the ALJ employed the five-step sequential evaluation
mandated by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. (Id.).
At step one, the ALJ recognized that Mayne had not engaged in any substantial gainful
activity from his alleged onset date through December 31, 2017, the date on which he last met the
SSA’s insured status requirements. (Tr. 17). At step two, she recognized that Mayne had the
following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine; Achilles’ tendonitis;
right shoulder impingement; degenerative joint disease to the left knee; residuals of left foot and toe
fracture; adjustment disorder; and OCD. 	She deemed Mayne’s other impairments, i.e., TMJ,
nephropathy, and migraines, to be “non-severe.” (Tr. 17-18).
Moving on to step three, the ALJ determined that Mayne’s various impairments alone or
combination did not meet or medically equal any of the presumptively disabling impairments listed
11
Case 1:19-cv-00019-CRH Document 18 Filed 08/03/20 Page 11 of 20

at 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (Tr. 18).
At step four, the ALJ assessed Mayne’s RFC, that is, Mayne’s ability to do sustained
work-related physical and mental activities in a work setting on a regular basis. (Tr. 19-25). Based
upon her review of the evidence, the ALJ made the following determination:
[T]he claimant had the residual functional capacity to perform less than a full range
of light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) except the claimant is limited to
lifting and carrying 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. The claimant
is limited to sitting (with normal breaks) for about 6 hours out of an 8-hour workday.
The claimant is limited to standing or walking (with normal breaks) for about 6 hours
out of an 8-hour workday. The claimant is occasional overhead reaching with the
right upper extremity. 	The claimant is limited to occasional operation of foot
controls with the left lower extremity. 	Mentally, the claimant is limited to
understanding, remembering and carrying out simple work instructions. 	The
claimant is limited to occasional interaction with supervisors, coworkers and the
general public.
(Id.). In making this determination, the ALJ acknowledged that Mayne’s medically determinable
impairments could reasonably be expected to cause some of his alleged symptoms. 	(Tr. 20.).
However, the ALJ did not find Mayne's statements regarding the intensity, persistence and limiting
effects of these symptoms to be entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in
the record. (Id.).
Moving on to the fifth and final step of his analysis, the ALJ recognized that Mayne was
unable to perform any of his past relevant work. (Tr. 25). However, based upon the vocational
expert’s testimony, she concluded that Mayne was capable of making a successful adjustment to
other work that existed in significant numbers in the national economy given his age, education,
work experience, and RFC. (Tr. 26). In reaching this conclusion, she acknowledged that Mayne’s
ability to perform all requirements of light work was impeded by a limitation on his ability to reach
overhead, but added that the vocational expert had accounted for this additional limitation in his
12
Case 1:19-cv-00019-CRH Document 18 Filed 08/03/20 Page 12 of 20

testimony. 	(Tr. 25-26).
II. 	APPLICABLE LAW
A. 	Law Governing the Eligibility for Benefits
A claimant is considered disabled for purposes of DIB if he or she is unable to engage in any
substantial gainful activity by reason of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that
can be expected to result in death or that has lasted, or can be expected to last, for a continuous
period of not less than twelve months. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A) and 1382c(a)(3)(A); see e.g.,
Hilkenmeyer v. Barnhart, 380 F.3d 441, 443 (8th Cir. 2004); Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211,
1217 (8th Cir. 2001).
In deciding whether a claimant is disabled within the meaning of the Act, 	the ALJ is
required to use the five-step sequential evaluation mandated by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4) and
determine:
(1) 	whether the claimant is presently engaged in a substantial gainful activity,
(2) 	whether the claimant has a severe impairment that significantly limits the
claimant's physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities,
(3) 	whether the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals a presumptively
disabling impairment listed in the regulations,
(4) 	whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform his or
her past relevant work, and
(5) 	if the claimant cannot perform the past work, the burden then shifts to the
Commissioner to prove that there are other jobs in the national economy that
the claimant can perform.
Upon reaching the fourth or fifth steps, the ALJ must determine a claimant’s residual functional
capacity (“RFC”), which is what the claimant can do despite his or her limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1545, 416.945. The ALJ is required to make the RFC determination based on all relevant
13
Case 1:19-cv-00019-CRH Document 18 Filed 08/03/20 Page 13 of 20

evidence, including, particularly, any observations of treating physicians and the claimant’s own
subjective complaints and descriptions of his or her limitations. Pearsall, 274 F.3d at 1218.
In evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints, the ALJ is required to assess the claimant’s
credibility in light of the objective medical evidence and “any evidence relating to: a claimant’s
daily activities; duration, frequency and intensity of pain; dosage and effectiveness of medication;
precipitating and aggravating factors, and functional restrictions.” Id.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 and
16.929. Claimant’s subjective complaints may be discounted only if found to be inconsistent with
the record taken as a whole. Pearsall, 274 F.3d at 1218.
B. 	Standard of Review
Upon review of the entire record, the court can affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the
Commissioner, with or without remanding the case for rehearing. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). To affirm the
Commissioner's decision, the court must find that substantial evidence appearing in the record as
a whole supports the decision. Id.; see also Cruse v. Bowen, 867 F.2d 1183, 1184 (8th Cir. 1989).
As the Eighth Circuit has repeatedly stated, the “substantial evidence on the record as a whole”
standard demands more rigorous review than the “substantial evidence”standard:
“Substantial evidence” is merely such “relevant evidence that a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” “Substantial evidence on the
record as a whole,” however, requires a more scrutinizing analysis. In the review of
an administrative decision, “[t]he substantiality of evidence must take into account
whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight.” Thus, the court must also take
into consideration the weight of the evidence in the record and apply a balancing test
to evidence which is contradictory.
Minor v. Astrue, 574 F.3d 625, 627 (8th Cir. 2009) (citing Wilson v. Sullivan, 886 F.2d 172, 175
(9th Cir. 1989)); see also Burress v. Apfel, 141 F.3d 875, 878 (8th Cir. 1998).
Under the substantial evidence standard, it is possible for reasonable persons to reach
14
Case 1:19-cv-00019-CRH Document 18 Filed 08/03/20 Page 14 of 20

contrary, inconsistent results. Culbertson v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 934, 939 (8th Cir. 1994). Thus, the
standard “embodies a zone of choice within which the [Commissioner] may decide to grant or deny
benefits without being subject to reversal on appeal.” Id.
The court may disturb an ALJ's decision only if the decision lies outside the available “zone
of choice.” 	Nicola v. Astrue, 480 F.3d 885, 886 (8th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). 	An ALJ's
decision is not outside the “zone of choice” simply because a court might have reached a different
result had it been the initial trier of fact. Id.
III. 	DISCUSSION
Mayne asserts that the record as a whole supports a finding of disability notwithstanding the
ALJ's contrary conclusion. In the alternative, Mayne asserts that this matter should be remanded
because the ALJ failed to consider all of his impairments and otherwise erred when assessing his
RFC. He broadly objects to the ALJ credibility assessment and RFC determination.
A. 	The ALJ’s Credibility Assessment
Mayne asserts that the ALJ improperly discounted his testimony and otherwise failed to
address several of his impairments, specifically, his sleep disorder, chronic fatigue, and migraines,
the combined effects of his impairments, the intensity and severity of his symptoms, and the side
effects of his medication. He further avers that the ALJ was wrong to extrapolate that he could
perform regular work based upon his ability to perform some menial day-to-day tasks. 	He
emphasizes that the VA had deemed him totally disabled.
In evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints, the ALJ is required to assess the claimant’s
credibility in light of the objective medical evidence and “any evidence relating to: a claimant’s
daily activities; duration, frequency and intensity of pain; dosage and effectiveness of medication;
15
Case 1:19-cv-00019-CRH Document 18 Filed 08/03/20 Page 15 of 20

precipitating and aggravating factors, and functional restrictions.” 	Id. 	In this circuit, these are
referred to as the “Polaski factors” after the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d
1320 (8th Cir. 1984). E.g., Ellis v. Barnhart, 392 F.3d 988, 993-996 (8th Cir. 2005) (“Ellis”). 	A
claimant’s subjective complaints may be discounted only if found to be inconsistent with the record
taken as a whole. Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d at 1218. The court should “defer to the ALJ’s
determinations regarding the credibility of testimony, so long as they are supported by good reasons
and substantial evidence.” Perks v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 1086, 1091 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting Guilliams
v. Barnhart, 393 F.3d 798, 801 (8th Cir. 2005)).
The record reflects that the ALJ did consider multiple factors when assessing Mayne’s
credibility. She acknowledged that Mayne’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably
be expected to cause his alleged symptoms. 	(Tr. 	22). She nevertheless found that Mayne’s
statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of these symptoms were not
entirely consistent with the objective medical evidence or other evidence in the record. (Tr. 20-24).
She then proceeded to contrast his statements with medical evidence that she viewed as being
inconsistent with Mayne’ claims. This included: (1) records from 2012 through 2017 that reflected
nothing remarkable or of concern from a physical standpoint: (2) the results of an MMPI Mayne
underwent in December 2012 that were interpreted to show a marked exaggeration of symptoms;
(2) a January 2013 Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score suggestive of mild symptoms
and limitations related to multiple family stressors and anxiety; (3) reports from March and April
2013 of Mayne’s compliance with medications with good results; (4) psychiatric observations of
Mayne from July 2013 through 2018 reflecting some initial setbacks followed by marked progress
in his ability manage his symptoms and maintain a modicum of stability; (5) the relatively
16
Case 1:19-cv-00019-CRH Document 18 Filed 08/03/20 Page 16 of 20

conservative nature of his treatment and the longs breaks between visits; and (5) minimal diagnostic
findings and the objective findings on physical examination. (Tr. 22-24).
Despite Mayne’s contentions, the court finds that the ALJ did address, migraines and fatigue,
albeit briefly. For example, at step two of her analysis, she deemed the migraines non-severe. She
again mentioned Mayne’s migraines and the rating assigned to them by the VA when discussing the
VA’s disability determinations. The fact that she did not dwell extensively on Mayne’s migraines
is not really surprising, however, as the last mention of them in the objective medical records was
on July 24, 2014, when Mayne reported to his examining physician that the Propranolol he had been
prescribed for them was working. As for Mayne’s reported fatigue, the record bears out that she
considered it in conjunction with his weight when assessing his residual functional capacity.
The court also finds that the ALJ adequately considered Mayne’s activities of daily living
when assessing Mayne’s credibility. The ALJ took inventory of Mayne’s activities of daily living
and his capacity to attend to his own personal care, cook simple meals, mow his lawn, drive, and
shop. (Id.). In so doing she noted the dearth of limitations observed or commented on by Mayne’s
psychiatric providers. 	(Id.) 	This evidence, while not determinative, lent further support to her
finding that Mayne could perform a range of light work activity that was simple in nature. (Tr. 22-
23).
The fact that the VA had previously determined Mayne to be disabled is not determinative.
While another agency’s disability ratings are relevant and instructive, they do not bind the ALJ
when evaluating whether a claimant is disabled for purposes of Social Security disability benefits.
See Pelkey v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 575, 579 (8th Cir. 2006). Here, the ALJ considered the VA’s
disability rating verifications in her decision and ultimately afforded them less weight because the
VA 	uses 	a 	different 	method 	of 	establishing 	benefit 	eligibility 	than 	the 	Social 	Security
17
Case 1:19-cv-00019-CRH Document 18 Filed 08/03/20 Page 17 of 20

Administration.
The ALJ thoroughly evaluated the record and gave specific reasons for finding Mayne’s
account not fully credible. See Gregg v. Barnhardt, 354 F.3d 710, 714 (8th Cir. 2003) (“If an ALJ
explicitly discredits the claimant’s testimony and gives good reasons for doing so, we will normally
defer to the ALJ’s credibility determination.”). Her interpretation of Mayne’s statements were not
beyond the pale and the court is mindful that it is prohibited from substituting its own judgment in
place of the ALJ's interpretation or weighing of the evidence de novo. See Wilcutts v. Apfel, 143
F.3d 1134, 1136 (8th Cir. 1998); Flynn v. Chater, 107 F.3d 617, 620 (8th Cir. 1997). 	After
reviewing the ALJ's decision and the record, the court concludes that, because the ALJ gave several
valid reasons for her determination that Mayne was not entirely credible, her credibility
determination is entitled to deference. Accordingly, the court finds substantial support in the record
for the ALJ’s conclusions.
B. 	The ALJ’s RFC Determination
Mayne next challenges the ALJ’s RFC as it pertains to his ability to: (1) sit or stand without
changing positions for extended periods of time; (2) perform repetitive movements with his hands
and arms on a sustained basis; and (3) perform at a pace and persistence required for competitive
employment. He again asserts that the ALJ failed to address all of his impairments and properly
credit his subjective complaints. He further asserts that the ALJ failed to account for the frequent
breaks and unscheduled absences he would require. 	Finally, citing the vocational expert’s
testimony, he further asserts such breaks and absences would preclude employment.
The ALJ is responsible for determining a claimant’s RFC based on all relevant evidence,
including medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and claimant’s own
description of his limitations. See Tellez v. Barnhart, 403 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir. 2005). 	The
18
Case 1:19-cv-00019-CRH Document 18 Filed 08/03/20 Page 18 of 20

record reflects that, when assessing Mayne’s RFC, the ALJ considered all of his symptoms, the
extent to which these symptoms could reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective
medical evidence and other evidence, the medical opinions and prior medical findings, and Mayne’s
own account of his activities of daily living and other functional abilities.
The ALJ accounted for Mayne’s various medical conditions in her RFC assessments,
including fatigue and pain caused by his impairments. She found Mayne was limited to lifting and
carrying 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; sitting for about 6 hours out of an 8 hour
workday; standing or walking for about 6 hours out of an 8 hour workday; occasional overhead
reaching with right upper extremity; occasional operation of hand controls with the right upper
extremity; and occasional operation of foot controls with the left lower extremity. Finally, she found
Mayne was limited to understanding, remembering, and carrying out simple work instructions, as
well as occasional interaction with supervisors, coworkers, and the general public.
There is nothing remarkable with respect to Mayne’s physical condition buried in the
medical records. Rather, they bear out that he retained normal range of motion, normal strength,
normal gait, and unlimited mobility. (Tr. 320, 353-59, 464, 477, 482-86, 534- 50, 569-73). There,
is also the evidence regarding his daily activities and statements regarding his exercise regimen.
Thus, the objective medical evidence of record supports the ALJ's physical RFC assessment.
The same can be said with respect to the ALJ’s mental RFC assessment. As discussed in
detail above, it is apparent from the medical records that Mayne’s course of treatment was on the
conservative side, that Mayne responded well to his medications, that Mayne’s thought process were
logical and intact without suicidal ideation, and that Mayne was otherwise making progress in
addressing the sources of stress in his life.
Two consulting physicians who reviewed these records opined 	that Mayne retained the
19
Case 1:19-cv-00019-CRH Document 18 Filed 08/03/20 Page 19 of 20

mental RFC to follow simple work instructions, maintain a regular work schedule, adapt to
workplace changes for routine work related functions, respond appropriately to others. They further
opined that Mayne was best suited for work having low public contact and few coworkers. ALJ
afforded significant weight to these opinions because they were supported by substantial medical
evidence in the record. The fact she did so is not tantamount to error. See Charles v. Barnhart, 375
F.3d 777, 783 (8th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513a(b)(1) (2017) (explaining that state agency
physicians are “highly qualified” experts in evaluation of disability claims, and their opinions are
to be treated as expert opinion evidence).
In sum, the court finds that the there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s RCF
determination.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
The court finds there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Commissioner’s
decision. 	Accordingly, the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment 	(Doc. No. 14) is
GRANTED, Mayne’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 12) is DENIED, and the
Commissioner’s final decision is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 3rd day of August, 2020..
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
20
Case 1:19-cv-00019-CRH Document 18 Filed 08/03/20 Page 20 of 20