Martin

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HARRISON DIVISION

IVAN L. MARTIN PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL NO. 25-3040

FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, Ivan L. Martin, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial

review of a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (Commissioner)

denying his claim for supplemental security income (SSI) benefits under the provisions of Title

XVI of the Social Security Act (Act). In this judicial review, the Court must determine whether

there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the Commissioner's decision.

See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

I. Procedural Background:

Plaintiff protectively filed his applications for DIB and SSI on January 23, 2023, and May

26, 2023, respectively, alleging an inability to work since December 15, 2016,1 due to collapsed

discs in the neck and upper back, lower back pain, arthritis, a left foot fracture with surgical

hardware, a right foot fracture, muscle pain under both shoulder blades, and chronic depression.

1 At the administrative hearing held on May 22, 2024, Plaintiff, through his counsel, amended his

alleged onset date to January 23, 2023. (Tr. 14, 37). Plaintiff’s DIB application was also dismissed

at the hearing as Plaintiff’s date last insured was prior to his amended alleged onset date. (Tr. 37).

(Tr. 99, 234, 241). An administrative video hearing was held on May 22, 2024, at which Plaintiff

appeared with counsel and testified. (Tr. 32-64).

By written decision dated June 26, 2024, the ALJ found that during the relevant time

period, Plaintiff had an impairment or combination of impairments that were severe. (Tr. 17).

Specifically, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: residual effects of a

fracture of the 3rd-4th metatarsals, mild degenerative joint disease of the right ankle, arthropathy

left ankle, residual effects of a fracture of the left ankle, degenerative disc disease of the thoracic

spine, degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine, cervical laminectomy with post laminectomy

syndrome, degenerative joint disease of the lumbar spine, mild degenerative joint disease of the SI

joints, chronic pain syndrome, an adjustment disorder, a depressive disorder and a positive RA

factor. However, after reviewing all of the evidence presented, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff’s

impairments did not meet or equal the level of severity of any impairment listed in the Listing of

Impairments found in Appendix I, Subpart P, Regulation No. 4. (Tr. 18). The ALJ found Plaintiff

retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to:

[P]erform light work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(b) except the claimant cannot

climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds. He can occasionally climb ramps and stairs,

stoop, crouch, kneel and crawl. He should avoid concentrated exposure to excessive

vibration, unprotected heights and hazardous machinery. The claimant can perform

frequent bilateral overhead reaching. He can use judgment to make simple work

related decision (sic); maintain concentration, persistence and pace for simple

tasks; understand, carry out and remember simple work instructions and

procedures; and adapt to changes in the work setting that are simple, predictable

and easily explained.

(Tr. 20). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ determined Plaintiff could perform work as

a price tag ticketer, a routing clerk, an addresser, and a document preparer. (Tr. 25).

Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council, who

denied that request on May 13, 2025. (Tr. 1-6). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this action. (ECF No.

2). This case is before the undersigned pursuant to the consent of the parties. (ECF No. 6). Both

parties have filed appeal briefs, and the case is now ready for decision. (ECF Nos. 9, 11).

II. Applicable Law:

The Court reviews “the ALJ’s decision to deny disability insurance benefits de novo to

ensure that there was no legal error that the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence

on the record as a whole.” Brown v. Colvin, 825 F. 3d 936, 939 (8th Cir. 2016). 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. Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S.Ct. 1148, 1154

(2019). We must affirm the ALJ’s decision if the record contains substantial evidence to support

it. Lawson v. Colvin, 807 F.3d 962, 964 (8th Cir. 2015). 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. Miller v. Colvin, 784 F.3d 472, 477

(8th Cir. 2015). 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 court

must affirm the ALJ’s decision. Id.

It is well established that a claimant for Social Security disability benefits has the burden

of proving his disability by establishing a physical or mental disability that has lasted at least one

year and that prevents him from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. Pearsall v.

Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1217 (8th Cir. 2001); see also 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). The Act

defines “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). A Plaintiff must show that

his disability, not simply his impairment, has lasted for at least twelve consecutive months.

The Commissioner’s regulations require him to apply a five-step sequential evaluation

process to each claim for disability benefits: (1) whether the claimant has engaged in substantial

gainful activity since filing his claim; (2) whether the claimant has a severe physical and/or mental

impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment(s) meet or equal an

impairment in the listings; (4) whether the impairment(s) prevent the claimant from doing past

relevant work; and, (5) whether the claimant is able to perform other work in the national economy

given his age, education, and experience. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. Only if the final stage is reached

does the fact finder consider the Plaintiff’s age, education, and work experience in light of his

residual functional capacity. See McCoy v. Schweiker, 683 F.2d 1138, 1141-42 (8th Cir. 1982),

abrogated on other grounds by Higgins v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 504, 505 (8th Cir. 2000); 20 C.F.R. §

416.920.

III. Discussion:

The regulations governing the consideration of medical opinions were revised for claims

filed on or after March 27, 2017. Plaintiff filed his claim for SSI on May 26, 2023. Accordingly,

the ALJ's treatment of medical opinion evidence is governed by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c. Under this

Regulation, ALJs are to consider all medical opinions equally and evaluate their persuasiveness

according to several specific factors – supportability, consistency, the medical source's relationship

with the claimant, specialization, and other factors such as the source's understanding of the Social

Security Administration's disability policies and their familiarity with other evidence in the claim.

20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c). ALJs must “articulate in [their] determination or decision how

persuasive [they] find all of the medical opinions and all of the prior administrative medical

findings in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(b).

In this case, the ALJ acknowledged the medical opinions regarding Plaintiffs physical and

mental capabilities but failed to articulate the persuasiveness given to the opinion of Dr. Joseph

Michel. (Tr. 23-24). The ALJ’s failure to comply with the opinion-evaluation Regulation warrants

remand. Bonnett v. Kijakazi, 859 Fed. Appx. 19 (8th Cir. 2021) (unpublished) (citations omitted);

Brandy B. v. Dudek, No. 4:25-CV-394 SRW, 2025 WL 3227484, at *5 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 19, 2025)

(An ALJ must articulate how persuasive he found all medical opinions and prior administrative

medical findings in a claimant's case record). On remand, the ALJ must fully evaluate the medical

opinion evidence, in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c. The ALJ should then re-evaluate

Plaintiff's RFC and specifically list in a hypothetical to a vocational expert any limitations that are

indicated in the RFC assessment and supported by the evidence.

IV. Conclusion:

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial

evidence, and therefore, the denial of benefits to the Plaintiff should be reversed and this matter

should be remanded to the Commissioner for further consideration pursuant to sentence four of 42

U.S.C. § 405(g).

DATED this 5th day of February 2026.

/si( Aseaty Cometock

CHRISTYMOMSTOCK

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE