IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION
MICHAEL DON HARRIS PLAINTIFF
vs. Civil No. 2:23-cv-02147
MARTIN J. O’MALLEY, DEFENDANT Commissioner, Social Security Administration
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Michael Don Harris (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant to § 205(g) of Title II of the Social Security Act (“The Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2010), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denying his application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Act. The Parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge to conduct any and all proceedings in this case, including conducting the trial, ordering the entry of a final judgment, and conducting all post-judgment proceedings. ECF No. 3. Pursuant to this authority, the Court issues this memorandum opinion and orders the entry of a final judgment in this matter. 1. Background: Plaintiff filed his disability application on November 24, 2020. (Tr. 10).1 In his 0F application, Plaintiff alleges being disabled due to back pain, nerve damage in neck, and carpal
1 The docket numbers for this case are referenced by the designation “ECF No. ___.” The transcript pages for this case are referenced by the designation “Tr.” and refer to the document filed at ECF No. 7. These references are to the page number of the transcript itself not the ECF page number. tunnel. (Tr. 231). Plaintiff alleged an onset date of November 24, 2020. (Tr. 10). Plaintiff’s application was denied initially and again upon reconsideration. Id. Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on his denied application, and this hearing request was granted. (Tr. 137-189). This hearing was held on June 21, 2022. (Tr. 36-63). At this
hearing, Plaintiff was present, and represented by Fred Caddell. Id. Plaintiff and Vocational Expert (“VE”), Marsha Stotozyszyn testified at the hearing. Id. Following the administrative hearing, on February 1, 2023, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision. (Tr. 10-22). In this decision, he ALJ determined Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity (“SGA”) since November 24, 2020. (Tr. 12, Finding 1). The ALJ then determined Plaintiff had severe impairments of anxiety, depression, cervical disc disease, lumbar disc disease, and right shoulder tendonitis and arthrosis. (Tr. 13, Finding 2). Despite being severe, the ALJ determined those impairments did not meet or medically equal the requirements of any of the Listings of Impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (“Listings”). (Tr. 13, Finding 3).
The ALJ considered Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and determined his RFC. (Tr. 15- 21). The ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and found the claimed limitations were not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record. Id. The ALJ also determined Plaintiff retained the RFC to perform to perform light work; except could frequently climb ramps and stairs; could occasionally climb ladders, ropes, and scaffolds; could frequently balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl; could occasionally reach overhead with the right upper extremity; must avoid concentrated exposure to vibration and hazards, such as dangerous machinery and unprotected heights; could perform work where interpersonal contact is routine but superficial, tasks are no more complex than those learned by experience with several variables and judgment within limits, and supervision is little for routine tasks but detailed for non- routine tasks. Id. The ALJ then evaluated Plaintiff’s Past Relevant Work (“PRW”). (Tr. 21, Finding 5). The ALJ determined Plaintiff was not capable of performing his PRW. Id. However, the ALJ found
there were jobs in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform. (Tr. 21, Finding 9). With the help of the VE, the ALJ found Plaintiff could perform the representative occupations of (1) shipping weigher with approximately 10,000 jobs in the nation, (2) produce sorter with approximately 7,000 jobs in the nation, (3) cotton classer with approximately 3,000 jobs in the nation, and (4) laminating machine off-bearer with approximately 1,000 jobs in the nation. Id. Based upon this finding, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not been disabled under the Act since November 24, 2020. (Tr. 22, Finding 10). On December 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed the present appeal. ECF No. 1. Both Parties have filed appeal briefs. ECF Nos. 9, 11. This case is now ready for decision. 2. Applicable Law:
In reviewing this case, the Court is required to determine whether the Commissioner’s findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2010); Ramirez v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 576, 583 (8th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance of the evidence, but it is enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support the Commissioner’s decision. See Johnson v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1145, 1147 (8th Cir. 2001). 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. See Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2001). 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. See Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065, 1068 (8th Cir. 2000). It is well-established that a claimant for Social Security disability benefits has the burden
of proving his or her disability by establishing a physical or mental disability that lasted at least one year and that prevents him or her from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. See Cox v. Apfel, 160 F.3d 1203, 1206 (8th Cir. 1998); 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act defines a “physical or mental impairment” as “an impairment that results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(3), 1382(3)(c). A plaintiff must show that his or her disability, not simply his or her impairment, has lasted for at least twelve consecutive months. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). To determine whether the adult claimant suffers from a disability, the Commissioner uses the familiar five-step sequential evaluation. He determines: (1) whether the claimant is presently
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION
MICHAEL DON HARRIS PLAINTIFF
vs. Civil No. 2:23-cv-02147
MARTIN J. O’MALLEY, DEFENDANT Commissioner, Social Security Administration
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Michael Don Harris (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant to § 205(g) of Title II of the Social Security Act (“The Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2010), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denying his application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Act. The Parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge to conduct any and all proceedings in this case, including conducting the trial, ordering the entry of a final judgment, and conducting all post-judgment proceedings. ECF No. 3. Pursuant to this authority, the Court issues this memorandum opinion and orders the entry of a final judgment in this matter. 1. Background: Plaintiff filed his disability application on November 24, 2020. (Tr. 10).1 In his 0F application, Plaintiff alleges being disabled due to back pain, nerve damage in neck, and carpal
1 The docket numbers for this case are referenced by the designation “ECF No. ___.” The transcript pages for this case are referenced by the designation “Tr.” and refer to the document filed at ECF No. 7. These references are to the page number of the transcript itself not the ECF page number. tunnel. (Tr. 231). Plaintiff alleged an onset date of November 24, 2020. (Tr. 10). Plaintiff’s application was denied initially and again upon reconsideration. Id. Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on his denied application, and this hearing request was granted. (Tr. 137-189). This hearing was held on June 21, 2022. (Tr. 36-63). At this
hearing, Plaintiff was present, and represented by Fred Caddell. Id. Plaintiff and Vocational Expert (“VE”), Marsha Stotozyszyn testified at the hearing. Id. Following the administrative hearing, on February 1, 2023, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision. (Tr. 10-22). In this decision, he ALJ determined Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity (“SGA”) since November 24, 2020. (Tr. 12, Finding 1). The ALJ then determined Plaintiff had severe impairments of anxiety, depression, cervical disc disease, lumbar disc disease, and right shoulder tendonitis and arthrosis. (Tr. 13, Finding 2). Despite being severe, the ALJ determined those impairments did not meet or medically equal the requirements of any of the Listings of Impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (“Listings”). (Tr. 13, Finding 3).
The ALJ considered Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and determined his RFC. (Tr. 15- 21). The ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and found the claimed limitations were not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record. Id. The ALJ also determined Plaintiff retained the RFC to perform to perform light work; except could frequently climb ramps and stairs; could occasionally climb ladders, ropes, and scaffolds; could frequently balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl; could occasionally reach overhead with the right upper extremity; must avoid concentrated exposure to vibration and hazards, such as dangerous machinery and unprotected heights; could perform work where interpersonal contact is routine but superficial, tasks are no more complex than those learned by experience with several variables and judgment within limits, and supervision is little for routine tasks but detailed for non- routine tasks. Id. The ALJ then evaluated Plaintiff’s Past Relevant Work (“PRW”). (Tr. 21, Finding 5). The ALJ determined Plaintiff was not capable of performing his PRW. Id. However, the ALJ found
there were jobs in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform. (Tr. 21, Finding 9). With the help of the VE, the ALJ found Plaintiff could perform the representative occupations of (1) shipping weigher with approximately 10,000 jobs in the nation, (2) produce sorter with approximately 7,000 jobs in the nation, (3) cotton classer with approximately 3,000 jobs in the nation, and (4) laminating machine off-bearer with approximately 1,000 jobs in the nation. Id. Based upon this finding, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not been disabled under the Act since November 24, 2020. (Tr. 22, Finding 10). On December 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed the present appeal. ECF No. 1. Both Parties have filed appeal briefs. ECF Nos. 9, 11. This case is now ready for decision. 2. Applicable Law:
In reviewing this case, the Court is required to determine whether the Commissioner’s findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2010); Ramirez v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 576, 583 (8th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance of the evidence, but it is enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support the Commissioner’s decision. See Johnson v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1145, 1147 (8th Cir. 2001). 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. See Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2001). 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. See Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065, 1068 (8th Cir. 2000). It is well-established that a claimant for Social Security disability benefits has the burden
of proving his or her disability by establishing a physical or mental disability that lasted at least one year and that prevents him or her from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. See Cox v. Apfel, 160 F.3d 1203, 1206 (8th Cir. 1998); 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act defines a “physical or mental impairment” as “an impairment that results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(3), 1382(3)(c). A plaintiff must show that his or her disability, not simply his or her impairment, has lasted for at least twelve consecutive months. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). To determine whether the adult claimant suffers from a disability, the Commissioner uses the familiar five-step sequential evaluation. He determines: (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 (if so, the claimant is disabled without regard to age, education, and work experience); (4) whether the claimant has the Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) to perform his or her past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant cannot perform the past work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove that there are other jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform. See Cox, 160 F.3d at 1206; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)-(f). The fact finder only considers the plaintiff’s age, education, and work experience in light of his or her RFC if the final stage of this analysis is reached. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (2003). 3. Discussion: In his appeal brief, Plaintiff claims the ALJ’s disability decision is not supported by
substantial evidence in the record. ECF No. 9. In making this claim, Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred (1) in the RFC determination, (2) in failing to properly evaluate Plaintiff’s severe impairments, (3) in failing to properly evaluate Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, and (4) in the Step 5 evaluation. Id. In response, Defendant argues the ALJ did not err in any of his findings. ECF No. 11. 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). The Court has reviewed the entire transcript and the parties’ briefs. For the reasons stated in the ALJ’s well-reasoned opinion and in the Government’s brief, the Court finds Plaintiff’s arguments on appeal to be without merit and finds the record as a whole reflects substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s decision. Accordingly, the ALJ’s decision is hereby summarily affirmed and Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. See Sledge v. Astrue, 364 Fed. Appx. 307 (8th Cir. 2010) (district court summarily affirmed the ALJ).
4. Conclusion: Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that the decision of the ALJ, denying benefits to Plaintiff, is supported by substantial evidence, and should be affirmed. A judgment incorporating these findings will be entered pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52 and 58. ENTERED this 3rd day of October 2024. Barry A. Bryant /s/ HON. BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE