Skip to the main content.
Free Case Review
BLOGS & LEGAL INSIGHTS:
BUSINESS LAW
Hero-Split-Right
CONSUMER LAW

Hero-Split-Left

 

WEBINARS

green lock security thumb

green lock security thumb

 

VIDEO LIBRARY

green lock security thumb

green lock security thumb

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

2 min read

An Appeal for Disability Benefits Due to Neck and Back Injuries

Lawyer standing before gavel

On January 2, 2019, Kevin Ross protectively filed an application for disability insurance benefits. His claim was based on multiple medical conditions, including deep vein thrombosis in his left hip, a cervical spine disc replacement, and a bulging disc in the lumbar spine. Ross indicated that these conditions significantly affected his head, neck, and lower back, making him unable to work in the national economy. He listed December 10, 2018, as the onset date of his disability.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) denied his initial claim, prompting Ross to request a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The hearing took place on October 6, 2020, with Ross represented by counsel. A vocational expert also testified regarding the kinds of work Ross might still be able to perform despite his limitations.

ALJ's Findings and Subsequent Appeals

On November 13, 2020, the ALJ concluded that Ross was not disabled under the SSA’s guidelines. The decision cited evidence suggesting that, while Ross had some restrictions due to his conditions, he could still perform work as a document preparer and a surveillance system monitor.

Ross challenged the ALJ’s ruling, but the SSA's Appeals Council denied his request for review on July 27, 2021. This denial made the ALJ’s decision the final determination from the SSA. Dissatisfied, Ross sought judicial review in the district court.

In August 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas reviewed the case. The court affirmed the ALJ’s decision, leading Ross to appeal once more, this time to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Medical Evidence and Credibility Assessment

The Appeals Court conducted a de novo review, carefully considering the medical evidence and the ALJ’s assessment of Ross’s credibility. Ross argued that his physical limitations were severe enough to preclude any form of work. However, the medical records provided conflicting information. Some reports indicated restricted neck movement and mild tenderness, while others showed a full range of motion during subsequent examinations. Imaging studies, including an MRI and X-ray, failed to demonstrate any acute spinal abnormalities.

Similarly, evaluations of Ross’s back condition produced mixed findings. Evidence supporting his claims of back pain was contradicted by other records, which noted that he maintained a painless range of motion. The ALJ concluded that the discrepancies in the medical evidence did not support Ross’s assertions of total disability.

The ALJ also evaluated Ross’s daily activities, which appeared inconsistent with his claims. Although Ross testified that he struggled with basic tasks such as dressing and bathing, he also reported engaging in activities like making small repairs, operating a riding lawn mower, and going fishing. He stated that he managed these activities by taking regular breaks, but the court found that his actions suggested a higher level of functioning than he described.

Conclusion

After reviewing the available evidence and testimony, the Appeals Court upheld the district court’s decision to affirm the denial of Ross’s disability benefits. The court noted that the record contained substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s determination, even amidst conflicting information. It highlighted that, when the evidence allows for two opposing conclusions, the Commissioner’s decision must be upheld if it falls within a reasonable range of interpretation.

The case of Ross v. O'Malley illustrates the legal standards courts use to evaluate disability claims, emphasizing the significance of consistent and clear medical documentation.