Costes v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Erin L. Wiedemann on February 27, 2018. (tg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
AMANDA COSTES
PLAINTIFF
v.
CIVIL NO. 16-5232
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Commissioner
Social Security Administration
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Amanda Costes, 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 her claims for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits
(DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI) benefits under the provisions of Titles II and
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).
Plaintiff protectively filed her current applications for DIB and SSI on August 27, 2013,
alleging an inability to work since January 1, 2007, 1 due to an auto accident resulting in left
arm and wrist injuries; PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder); foot problems; dissociative
identity disorder; borderline personality disorder; possible schizophrenia; anxiety; and
depression. (Tr. 71, 205, 212). For DIB purposes, Plaintiff maintained insured status through
1
Plaintiff, through her counsel, amended her alleged onset date to January 31, 2011. (Tr. 22, 44, 301).
1
March 31, 2013. (Tr. 22, 223). An administrative hearing was held on September 24, 2014,
at which Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified. (Tr. 41-68).
By written decision dated April 30, 2015, the ALJ found that during the relevant time
period, Plaintiff had an impairment or combination of impairments that were severe. (Tr. 24).
Specifically, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: a left ankle fracture
with fibula nonunion; history of left upper extremity fractures; obesity; a mood disorder, not
otherwise specified (NOS); PTSD; and alcohol abuse/dependence. 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. 25). The ALJ found Plaintiff retained the
residual functional capacity (RFC) to:
lift and/or carry 10 pounds occasionally and less than 10 pounds frequently,
push and/or pull within those limitations, stand/walk two hours in an eight-hour
workday, with normal breaks, and sit six hours in an eight-hour workday, with
normal breaks. In addition, she cannot climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds, and
she can occasionally climb ramps and stairs, balance and operate foot controls
on the left. She must avoid even moderate exposure to hazardous machinery
and unprotected heights, and she is limited to jobs that can be performed while
using a hand held device for prolonged ambulation 50 percent of the time. The
claimant is further limited and can perform work where interpersonal contact is
incidental to the work performed and where the complexity of tasks is learned
and performed by rote with few variables and little judgment. The supervision
required is simple, direct and concrete.
(Tr. 26-27). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ determined Plaintiff could perform
work as a small products assembler, a document preparer and an escort vehicle driver. 2 (Tr.
33).
While not raised by either party, the Court notes the record indicates that Plaintiff does not have a driver’s license so
substantial evidence does not support Plaintiff’s ability to perform the job as an escort driver. (Tr. 274). However, substantial
evidence of record supports Plaintiff’s ability to perform work as a small products assembler and a document preparer both of
which have ample jobs in the national economy.
2
2
Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council, which
after reviewing additional evidence submitted by Plaintiff, denied that request on July 6, 2016.
(Tr. 3-9). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this action. (Doc. 1). This case is before the
undersigned pursuant to the consent of the parties. (Doc. 6). Both parties have filed appeal
briefs, and the case is now ready for decision. (Docs. 11, 12).
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 the Government’s brief, the Court finds
Plaintiff’s arguments on appeal to be without merit and finds that 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.
3
Astrue, No. 08-0089, 2008 WL 4816675 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 31, 2008) (summarily affirming
ALJ’s denial of disability benefits), aff’d, 364 Fed. Appx. 307 (8th Cir. 2010).
DATED this 27th day of February 2018.
/s/ Erin L. Wiedemann
HON. ERIN L. WIEDEMANN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4
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?