IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EL DORADO DIVISION BECKY M. SMITH PLAINTIFF
vs. Civil No. 1:17-cv-01069 NANCY A. BERRYHILL DEFENDANT Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration MEMORANDUM OPINION Becky M. Smith, (“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 her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Titles II and 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. 7. Pursuant to this authority, the Court issues this memorandum opinion and orders the entry of a final judgment in this matter. 1. Background: Plaintiff protectively filed her applications for DIB and SSI on November 24, 2014. (Tr. 12). In this applications, Plaintiff alleges being disabled due to sarcoidosis, rheumatoid arthritis, high blood pressure, pulmonary problems, and fibromyalgia. (Tr. 234). Thereafter, Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing, and that hearing request was granted. (Tr. 142-143). Plaintiff’s administrative hearing was held on August 29, 2016. (Tr. 39-68). At this hearing, Plaintiff was present and was represented by counsel, Mary Thomason. Id. Plaintiff and Vocational
1 Expert (“VE”) Stephanie Ford testified at the hearing. Id. At the time of the hearing, Plaintiff was forty-four (44) years old and had an eleventh grade education. (Tr. 46). Following the hearing, on November 22, 2016, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff’s application for DIB and SSI. (Tr. 12-22). In this decision, the ALJ determined the Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Act through December 31, 2018. (Tr. 14, Finding 1). The ALJ also determined Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity (“SGA”) since June 28, 2013. (Tr. 14, Finding 2).
The ALJ then found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: rheumatoid arthritis, sarcoidosis, hypertension, renal insufficiency, and depression. (Tr. 14, Finding 3). Despite being severe, the ALJ determined those impairments did not meet or medically equal the requirements of any of the Listings of Impairments in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Regulations No. 4 (“Listings”). (Tr. 14, Finding 4). In this decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and determined her RFC. (Tr. 16, Finding 5). First, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and found her claimed limitations were not entirely credible. Id. Second, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the RFC to perform sedentary work except, must avoid concentrated exposure to fumes, odors, dusts, and gases, and limited to jobs involving occasional contact with coworkers, supervisors, and the general
public. Id. The ALJ then evaluated Plaintiff’s Past Relevant Work (“PRW”). (Tr. 21, Finding 6). The ALJ determined Plaintiff was nat capable of performing her PRW. Id. The ALJ, however, also determined there was other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy Plaintiff could perform. (Tr. 21, Finding 10). The ALJ based this determination upon the testimony of the VE. Id. Specifically, the VE testified that given all Plaintiff's vocational factors, a hypothetical
2 individual would be able to perform the requirements of representative occupations such as document preparer with approximately 45,000 such jobs in the nation and surveillance system monitor with approximately 5,300 such jobs in the nation.. Id. Based upon this finding, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined in the Act, from June 28, 2013, through the date of the decision. (Tr. 22, Finding 11). Thereafter, Plaintiff requested the Appeals Council’s review of the ALJ’s decision. (Tr. 191- 194). The Appeals Council denied this request for review. (Tr. 1-4). On November 17, 2017,
Plaintiff filed the present appeal. ECF No. 1. Both Parties have filed appeal briefs. ECF Nos. 12, 13. This case is now ready for decision. 2. Applicable Law: 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)
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: Plaintiff brings the present appeal claiming the ALJ erred (1) in failing to consider the opinion of Plaintiff’s treating physician, (2) in failing to properly evaluate Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain, and (3) in the Step 5 determination. ECF No. 12, Pgs. 7-14. In response, Defendant argues the ALJ did not err in any of her findings. ECF No. 13. 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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EL DORADO DIVISION BECKY M. SMITH PLAINTIFF
vs. Civil No. 1:17-cv-01069 NANCY A. BERRYHILL DEFENDANT Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration MEMORANDUM OPINION Becky M. Smith, (“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 her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Titles II and 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. 7. Pursuant to this authority, the Court issues this memorandum opinion and orders the entry of a final judgment in this matter. 1. Background: Plaintiff protectively filed her applications for DIB and SSI on November 24, 2014. (Tr. 12). In this applications, Plaintiff alleges being disabled due to sarcoidosis, rheumatoid arthritis, high blood pressure, pulmonary problems, and fibromyalgia. (Tr. 234). Thereafter, Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing, and that hearing request was granted. (Tr. 142-143). Plaintiff’s administrative hearing was held on August 29, 2016. (Tr. 39-68). At this hearing, Plaintiff was present and was represented by counsel, Mary Thomason. Id. Plaintiff and Vocational
1 Expert (“VE”) Stephanie Ford testified at the hearing. Id. At the time of the hearing, Plaintiff was forty-four (44) years old and had an eleventh grade education. (Tr. 46). Following the hearing, on November 22, 2016, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff’s application for DIB and SSI. (Tr. 12-22). In this decision, the ALJ determined the Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Act through December 31, 2018. (Tr. 14, Finding 1). The ALJ also determined Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity (“SGA”) since June 28, 2013. (Tr. 14, Finding 2).
The ALJ then found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: rheumatoid arthritis, sarcoidosis, hypertension, renal insufficiency, and depression. (Tr. 14, Finding 3). Despite being severe, the ALJ determined those impairments did not meet or medically equal the requirements of any of the Listings of Impairments in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Regulations No. 4 (“Listings”). (Tr. 14, Finding 4). In this decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and determined her RFC. (Tr. 16, Finding 5). First, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and found her claimed limitations were not entirely credible. Id. Second, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the RFC to perform sedentary work except, must avoid concentrated exposure to fumes, odors, dusts, and gases, and limited to jobs involving occasional contact with coworkers, supervisors, and the general
public. Id. The ALJ then evaluated Plaintiff’s Past Relevant Work (“PRW”). (Tr. 21, Finding 6). The ALJ determined Plaintiff was nat capable of performing her PRW. Id. The ALJ, however, also determined there was other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy Plaintiff could perform. (Tr. 21, Finding 10). The ALJ based this determination upon the testimony of the VE. Id. Specifically, the VE testified that given all Plaintiff's vocational factors, a hypothetical
2 individual would be able to perform the requirements of representative occupations such as document preparer with approximately 45,000 such jobs in the nation and surveillance system monitor with approximately 5,300 such jobs in the nation.. Id. Based upon this finding, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined in the Act, from June 28, 2013, through the date of the decision. (Tr. 22, Finding 11). Thereafter, Plaintiff requested the Appeals Council’s review of the ALJ’s decision. (Tr. 191- 194). The Appeals Council denied this request for review. (Tr. 1-4). On November 17, 2017,
Plaintiff filed the present appeal. ECF No. 1. Both Parties have filed appeal briefs. ECF Nos. 12, 13. This case is now ready for decision. 2. Applicable Law: 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)
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: Plaintiff brings the present appeal claiming the ALJ erred (1) in failing to consider the opinion of Plaintiff’s treating physician, (2) in failing to properly evaluate Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain, and (3) in the Step 5 determination. ECF No. 12, Pgs. 7-14. In response, Defendant argues the ALJ did not err in any of her findings. ECF No. 13. 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
4 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 27th day of November 2018.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant HON. BARRY A. BRYANT U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE