Nelson v. Social Security Administration

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

CHARLESTON NELSON, II PLAINTIFF

V. No. 4:21-CV-01192-LPR-JJV

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (PFRD) submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe and the filed Objections.1 After carefully considering the Objections and performing a de novo review of the PFRD and the record, the Court concludes that the PFRD should be, and hereby is, approved and adopted in its entirety as this Court’s findings. Mr. Nelson objects to Judge Volpe’s treatment of one of his arguments—that the ALJ failed to adequately explain his reasoning for formulating a light-duty RFC. Judge Volpe found this argument to be without merit, but Mr. Nelson argues that the PFRD failed to properly address it. As Judge Volpe explained in the PFRD, the ALJ “reviewed hundreds of pages of medical records, considered the testimony of the vocational expert, and listened to [Mr. Nelson’s] testimony” in determining his RFC.2 The ALJ specifically found that Mr. Nelson’s medical records, activities of daily living, reports of pain and discomfort, and course of treatment for his impairments each supported the light RFC finding.3 And Mr. Nelson is reminded that it is the disability claimant,

1 Docs. 14 and 15. 2 PFRD (Doc. 15) at 7-8. 3 Admin. Tr. at 16 (Doc. 10–2). not the ALJ, who bears the burden of persuasion to demonstrate a more restrictive RFC.4 The PFRD properly rejected this argument as meritless. Mr. Nelson also asserts, without explanation, that Judge Volpe “failed to utilize the proper legal standards” in reaching his decision.” The Court rejects this undeveloped argument. The PFRD properly determined that the Commissioner’s decision was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and not based on legal error.° IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED, and judgment will be entered for the Commissioner in this case.’ DATED this 2nd day of March 2023.

LEE P. oY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4 Martise v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 909, 923 (8th Cir. 2011). > Objs. 6 PFRD (Doc. 14) at 11-12. See Miller v. Colvin, 784 F.3d 472, 477 (8th Cir. 2015). 7 Although the Court fully adopts the substantive merits of the PFRD, the Court has a technical alteration to the PFRD’s suggested resolution of this case. The Court finds that the proper disposition in this case is to affirm the Commissioner’s decision and accordingly enter judgment on the merits in the Commissioner’s favor.