Eldridge v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Erin L. Wiedemann on February 28, 2018. (rg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
CHARLES WAYNE ELDRIDGE

v.

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL NO. 16-5289

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,1 Commissioner
Social Security Administration

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Charles Wayne Eldridge, 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 a period of disability and disability insurance benefits
(DIB) and his claims for supplemental security income (SSI) benefits under the provisions of
Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security 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 his applications for DIB and SSI on March 24, 2014, alleging
an inability to work since January 1, 2014, due to depression, fatigue, high blood pressure, and
“stress reaction.” (Tr. 237.) An administrative hearing was held on May 20, 2015, at which
Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified and a vocational expert (VE) also testified. (Tr. 4173).
By written decision dated July 2, 2015, the ALJ found that during the relevant time
period, Plaintiff had an impairment or combination of impairments that were severe.

1

Nancy A. Berryhiill has been appointed to serve as acting Commisioner of Social Security and is substituted as
the Defendant pursuant to Rule 25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Specifically, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: anxiety and
depression. (Tr. 13.) 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:
perform a full range of work at all exertional levels but with the following
nonexertional limitations: the claimant is limited to simple tasks, simple
instructions, and limited contact with the general public.
(Tr. 15). With the help of a vocational expert (VE), the ALJ determined Plaintiff could perform
work as a cleaner hospital laundry aid, conveyor feeder off bearer and hand packager. (Tr. 22).
Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council, which
considered additional evidence submitted by the Plaintiff but denied the request for review on
August 19, 2016. (Tr. 1-7). 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).
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence because
the RFC as found by the ALJ was not the same as that presented to the VE in the hypothetical
question posed to the VE at the hearing. As stated above, the ALJ found that the Plaintiff had
the RFC to perform work which was limited to simple tasks, simple instructions, and limited
contact with the general public. In the hypothetical posed to the VE, the ALJ did not phrase
Plaintiff’s RFC as involving limited contact with the general public, but instead phrased it as
involving only incidental contact with co-workers. Any error by the ALJ in this regard was
harmless, as the jobs identified by the VE are all rated in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles
as “Not Significant” for the category “People: 8 – Taking Instructions – Helping.” DOT § §
323.687-010, 921.686-014, 920.587-018. This rating has been construed as consistent with
limitations to occasional, brief and superficial contact with co-workers and occasional
interaction with the public. See e.g., Connor v. Colvin, No. 1:13-cv-00219-JAW, 2014 WL
3533466, *4 (D. Maine July 16, 2014); see also Alie v. Berryhill, No. 4:16-cv-1353-JMB, 2017
WL 2572287, *16 (E.D. Mo. June 14, 2017); Williams v. Commission of Soc. Sec., No. 8:17-cv32-T-JSS, 2018 WL 992827, *3-4 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 21, 2018); Call v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec.,
No. 1:16-cv-1003 (WBC), 2017 WL 2126809, *5 (N.D. N.Y. May 16, 2017).
The Court has reviewed the entire transcript and the parties’ briefs. For the reasons
stated above, 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 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. 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 28th day of February 2018.

/s/ Erin L. Wiedemann
HON. ERIN L. WIEDEMANN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE