Owens v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on February 11, 2019. (mll)
IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
TERESA OWENS
vs.
PLAINTIFF
Civil No. 4:18-cv-04037
NANCY A. BERRYHILL
Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Teresa Owens, (“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 application for
Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II 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. 5. 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 application for DIB on February 10, 2015. (Tr. 10). In this
application, Plaintiff alleges being disabled due to back pain, pain in left leg, heart arrhythmia, sleep
apnea, diabetes, high blood pressure, and fatigue. (Tr. 165). Plaintiff alleges an onset date of July
29, 2014. (Tr. 10). Her application was denied initially and again upon reconsideration. Id.
Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on her denied application. (Tr. 96-97). The
request was granted and Plaintiff’s administrative hearing was held on May 19, 2016. (Tr. 24-63).
At this hearing, Plaintiff was present and was represented by counsel, Greg Giles. Id. Plaintiff and
1
Vocational Expert (“VE”) James Wallace testified at the hearing. Id. At the time of the hearing,
Plaintiff was fifty (50) years old and had a high school education. (Tr. 161, 166).
Following the hearing, on July 13, 2017, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision denying
Plaintiff’s application for DIB. (Tr. 10-19). In this decision, the ALJ determined the Plaintiff met
the insured status requirements of the Act through June 30, 2015. (Tr. 12, Finding 1). The ALJ also
determined Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity (“SGA”) from July 29, 2014
through her last date insured of June 30, 2015. (Tr. 12, Finding 2).
The ALJ then found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: cervical and lumbar
spine degenerative disc disease; heart arrhythmia; arthritis of the knee; and diabetes mellitus. (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 her RFC.
(Tr. 14-17, 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 a restricted range of light work limited to occasional climbing of ladders, ropes
and scaffolds; frequent climbing ramps and stairs; and frequent stooping, crouching and crawling.
Id.
The ALJ then evaluated Plaintiff’s Past Relevant Work (“PRW”). (Tr. 17, Finding 6). The
ALJ determined Plaintiff was capable of performing her PRW as a grader dress poultry and daycare
worker. Id. Based upon this finding, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not been under a disability,
as defined in the Act, from July 29, 2014, through the date last insured of June 30, 2015. (Tr. 18,
Finding 7).
2
Thereafter, Plaintiff requested the Appeals Council’s review of the ALJ’s decision. (Tr. 144145). The Appeals Council denied this request for review. (Tr. 1-4). On March 14, 2018, 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)
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
3
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 properly evaluate
Plaintiff’s RFC, (2) in failing to find Plaintiff met a Listing, and (3) in the Step 5 determination.
ECF No. 12, Pgs. 4-17. In response, Defendant argues the ALJ did not err in any of his 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
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
4
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 11th day of February 2019.
Barry A. Bryant
/s/
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?