# Clark v. Kijakazi

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · March 11, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10236724

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** March 11, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10236724

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ADAM LEE CLARK )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
)
vs. ) Case No. 4:21-CV-00342-SEP
)
KILOLO KIJAKAZI,1 )
)
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This is an action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) for judicial review of the final decision of
Defendant Kilolo Kijakazi, the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, denying the application
of Plaintiff Adam Lee Clark for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) under Title II of the Social
Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq. Because there is substantial evidence to support the
decision denying benefits, the Court will affirm the Commissioner’s denial of Plaintiff’s
application.
I. BACKGROUND
On January 17, 2018, Plaintiff applied for DIB, alleging that he had been unable to work
due to disability since October 1, 2015. (Tr. 124). Plaintiff alleged disability due to elbow pain,
right leg pain, asthma, osteomyelitis, nerve damage in right foot, poor circulation in feet and
legs, and anxiety. (Tr. 180-83). His application was initially denied (Tr. 67) and Plaintiff filed a
Request for Hearing by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). (Tr. 72). On April 4, 2019, the ALJ
held a hearing on Plaintiff’s claim. (Tr. 27-49).
In an opinion issued on April 3, 2019, the ALJ found Plaintiff was not disabled as defined
in the Act. (Tr. 12-26). Plaintiff filed a Request for Review of Hearing Decision with the Social
Security Administration’s (SSA) Appeals Council. (Tr. 118). On October 23, 2019, the SSA’s

1 Kilolo Kijakazi became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on July 9, 2021. Pursuant to Rule
25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, she is substituted as the Defendant in this case. No further
action is needed for this action to continue. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (last sentence).
Appeals Council denied his Request for Review. (Tr. 5-9). Plaintiff has exhausted all
administrative remedies, and the decision of the ALJ stands as the final decision of the Acting
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.
As to Plaintiff’s testimony, work history, and medical records, the Court accepts the facts
as provided by the parties.
II. STANDARD FOR DETERMINING DISABILITY UNDER THE ACT
To be eligible for benefits under the Act, a claimant must prove he or she is disabled.
Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1217 (8th Cir. 2001); Baker v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 955 F.2d 552, 555 (8th Cir. 1992). The Act defines as disabled a person who is unable
“to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical
or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be
expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A);
1382c(a)(3)(A); see also Hurd v. Astrue, 621 F.3d 734, 738 (8th Cir. 2010). The impairment
must be “of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot,
considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial
gainful work which exists in the national economy, regardless of whether such work exists in the
immediate area in which he lives, or whether a specific job vacancy exists for him, or whether he
would be hired if he applied for work.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(2)(A); 1382c(a)(3)(B).
To determine whether a claimant is disabled, the Commissioner engages in a five-step
evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a); 2 see also McCoy v. Astrue, 648
F.3d 605, 611 (8th Cir. 2011) (discussing the five-step process). At Step One, the Commissioner
determines whether the claimant is currently engaging in “substantial gainful activity”; if so, then
he is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i); McCoy, 648 F.3d at 611. At Step Two, the
Commissioner determines whether the claimant has a severe impairment, which is “any
impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or
mental ability to do basic work activities”; if the claimant does not have a severe impairment, he
is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 404.1520(c); McCoy, 648 F.3d at 611. At Step
Three, the Commissioner evaluates whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals one of
the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (the “listings”). 20 C.F.R.

2 All references throughout this opinion are to the version of the regulations that was in effect as of the
date of the ALJ’s decision.
§§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii); McCoy, 648 F.3d at 611. If the claimant has such an impairment, the
Commissioner will find the claimant disabled; if not, the Commissioner proceeds with the rest of
the five-step process. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d); McCoy, 648 F.3d at 611.
Prior to Step Four, the Commissioner must assess the claimant’s “residual functional
capacity” (RFC), which is “the most a claimant can do despite [his or her] limitations.” Moore v.
Astrue, 572 F.3d 520, 523 (8th Cir. 2009) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1)); see also 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1520(e). At Step Four, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant can return to
his past relevant work by comparing the claimant’s RFC with the physical and mental demands
of the claimant’s past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 404.1520(f); McCoy, 648
F.3d at 611. If the claimant can perform his past relevant work, he is not disabled; if the
claimant cannot, the analysis proceeds to the next step. Id. At Step Five, the Commissioner
considers the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience to determine whether the
claimant can make an adjustment to other work in the national economy; if he cannot make such
an adjustment, he will be found disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v);
McCoy, 648 F.3d at 611.
Through Step Four, the burden remains with the claimant to prove that he is disabled.
Moore, 572 F.3d at 523. At Step Five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to establish that,
given the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience, there are a significant number of
other jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform. Id.; Brock v. Astrue, 674 F.3d
1062, 1064 (8th Cir. 2012).
III. THE ALJ’S DECISION
Applying the foregoing five-step analysis, the ALJ here found that Plaintiff last met the
insured status requirements of the Act on December 31, 2015; that Plaintiff did not engage in
substantial gainful activity from the alleged onset date, October 1, 2015, through his date last
insured; Plaintiff has the severe impairments of right heel fracture status post surgeries, wound
infection of lower right extremity, and asthma; and that Plaintiff does not have an impairment or
combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed
impairments in 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (Tr. 17-18). The ALJ found that
between October 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015, Plaintiff had the RFC to perform sedentary
work as defined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(a), except that he could lift or carry 20 pounds only
occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; he could stand or walk for 2 hours in an 8-hour workday,
and sit for 6 hours; he could occasionally use foot controls with his right lower extremity; he
could occasionally climb ramps, stairs, ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; he could frequently balance
and kneel, and occasionally crawl; and he should have avoided exposure to workplace hazards
such as unprotected heights, dangerous machinery, and temperature extremes; and he should
have avoided wetness, humidity, pulmonary irritants, and poor ventilation. (Tr. 18).
The ALJ found that Plaintiff was unable to perform any of his past relevant work during
the relevant period. (Tr. 20). But considering Plaintiff’s age, education, and work experience,
and in reliance on the testimony of a vocational expert (VE), the ALJ found that Plaintiff would
have been able to perform occupations including document scanner (Dictionary of Occupational
Titles (DOT) No. 249.587-018, sedentary exertion level, 65,000 jobs in the national economy),
circuit board assembler (DOT No. 726.684-110, sedentary exertion level, 80,000 jobs in the
national economy), and packager (DOT No. 559.687-014, sedentary exertion level, 50,000 jobs
in the national economy). (Tr. 19). The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled, as
defined in the Act, from the alleged onset date through December 31, 2015, the date last insured.
(Tr. 22).
IV. STANDARD FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
This Court must affirm the Commissioner’s decision if it complies with the relevant legal
requirements and is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. See 42 U.S.C.
§§ 405(g); 1383(c)(3); Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); Pate-Fires v. Astrue,
564 F.3d 935, 942 (8th Cir. 2009); Estes v. Barnhart, 275 F.3d 722, 724 (8th Cir. 2002). “Under
the substantial-evidence standard, a court looks to an existing administrative record and asks
whether it contains ‘sufficien[t] evidence’ to support the agency’s factual determinations.”
Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB,
305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). “Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance, but is enough
that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support the Commissioner’s conclusion.” Pate-
Fires, 564 F.3d at 942. See also Biestek, 139 S. Ct. at 1154 (“Substantial evidence . . . means—
and means only— ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.’ ”) (quoting Consolidated Edison, 305 U.S. at 229).
In determining whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision, the
Court considers both evidence that supports that decision and evidence that detracts from that
decision. Renstrom v. Astrue, 680 F.3d 1057, 1063 (8th Cir. 2012). However, the Court “‘do[es]
not reweigh the evidence presented to the ALJ, and [it] defer[s] to the ALJ’s determinations
regarding the credibility of testimony, as long as those determinations are supported by good
reasons and substantial evidence.’” Id. at 1064 (quoting Gonzales v. Barnhart, 465 F.3d 890,
894 (8th Cir. 2006)). “If, after reviewing the record, the court finds it is possible to draw two
inconsistent positions from the evidence and one of those positions represents the ALJ’s
findings, the court must affirm the ALJ’s decision.” Partee v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 860, 863 (8th
Cir. 2011) (quoting Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 789 (8th Cir. 2005)).
V. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff challenges the ALJ’s decision, asserting that the ALJ’s decision was not
supported by substantial evidence. Defendant argues that substantial evidence supports the
ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff was not disabled as defined in the Act.
As described above, this Court’s role is to determine whether the ALJ’s findings are
supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g);
1383(c)(3); Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401; Pate-Fire, 564 F.3d at 942; Estes, 275 F.3d at 724. As
long as there is substantial evidence in the record that supports the decision, this 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).
The Court has reviewed the entire transcript and the parties’ briefs. Based on a careful
review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the ALJ’s opinion and in the Government’s
brief, the Court finds Plaintiff’s arguments on appeal to be without merit and further finds that
the record as a whole reflects substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s decision. See Sledge v.
Astrue, 364 Fed. App’x 307 (8th Cir. 2010) (district court summarily affirmed the ALJ).
The Court acknowledges that the record contains conflicting evidence, and the ALJ could
have reached a different conclusion. However, this Court’s task is not to reweigh the evidence
presented to the ALJ. The ALJ’s weighing of the evidence here fell within the available “zone of
choice,” and the Court cannot disturb that decision merely because it might have reached a
different conclusion. See Buckner v. Astrue, 646 F.3d 549, 556 (8th Cir. 2011).
VI. CONCLUSION
Having reviewed the entire record, the Court finds that the ALJ made a proper RFC
determination based on a fully and fairly developed record. Consequently, the Court determines
that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED.

Dated this 11" day of March, 2022.

tL ig
SARAH E. PITLYK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10236724. Public record. Not legal advice.