Smith v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

MICHAEL R. SMITH PLAINTIFF

vs. Civil No. 6:18-cv-06107

ANDREW SAUL DEFENDANT

Commissioner, Social Security Administration

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Michael R. 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 his application for

Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SS”) 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. 6.1 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 his application for DIB and SSI on December 22, 2015. (Tr. 10).

In these applications, Plaintiff alleges being disabled due to heart issues, chronic hypertension, heart

attack, fibromyalgia, fatigue, judgment impairment from medication, torn anterior cruciate ligament,

1 References to the Transcript will be (Tr. ___) and refer to the document filed at ECF No. 13. These

references are to the page number of the transcript itself not the ECF page number.

1

recent back surgery, anxiety issues, obsessive compulsive disorder, depression, and kidney problems.

(Tr. 285). Plaintiff alleges an onset date of November 4, 2011. (Tr. 243-247). His applications were

denied initially and again upon reconsideration. Id.

Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on his denied applications. (Tr. 187). This

hearing request was granted and Plaintiff’s administrative hearing was held on July 19, 2017. (Tr.

33-69). At this hearing, Plaintiff was present and was represented by counsel, Fred Caddell. Id.

Plaintiff and Vocational Expert (“VE”) Alissa Smith testified at the hearing. Id. At the time of the

hearing, Plaintiff was thirty-five (35) years old and had graduated high school. (Tr. 38).

Following the hearing on April 4, 2018, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision denying

Plaintiff’s application for DIB and SSI. (Tr. 10-21). In this decision, the ALJ determined Plaintiff

met the insured status requirements of the Act through March 31, 2014. (Tr. 13, Finding 1). The

ALJ also determined Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity (“SGA”) since

November 4, 2011. (Tr. 13, Finding 2).

The ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: status post history of cervical

spine surgery, history of fibromyalgia, alcohol use disorder, depression, and anxiety. (Tr. 13,

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. 13, Finding 4).

In this decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and determined his RFC.

(Tr. 15-19, Finding 5). First, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and found his

claimed limitations were not entirely credible. Id. Second, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained

2

the RFC perform sedentary work, except limited to work that required only occasional stooping,

crouching, bending, kneeling, crawling, and balancing, and involving simple, routine, and repetitive

tasks with simple, direct, and concrete supervision, frequent contact with coworkers and supervisors,

and occasional contact with the public. Id.

The ALJ then evaluated Plaintiff’s Past Relevant Work (“PRW”). (Tr. 19, Finding 6). The

ALJ determined Plaintiff was not 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. 19, 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

individual would be able to perform the requirements of representative occupations such as

document specialist with approximately 30,000 such jobs in the nation, toy stufffer with

approximately 14,000 such jobs in the nation, and printed circuit board screener with approximately

19,000 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 November 4, 2011 through the date of the

decision. (Tr. 20, Finding 11).

Thereafter, Plaintiff requested the Appeals Council’s review of the ALJ’s decision. (241).

The Appeals Council denied this request for review. (Tr. 1-6). On October 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed

the present appeal. ECF No. 1. Both Parties have filed appeal briefs. ECF Nos. 15, 16. 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

3

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:

Plaintiff brings the present appeal claiming the ALJ erred: (1) in the symptom evaluation, and

(2) in failing to properly determine Plaintiff’s RFC. ECF No. 15, Pgs.7-11. In response, Defendant

argues the ALJ did not err in any of his findings. ECF No. 16.

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 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).

5

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 11th day of September 2019.

/s/ Barry A. Bryant

HON. BARRY A. BRYANT

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6