Grube v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Erin L. Wiedemann on March 20, 2019. (lgd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
TINA M. GRUBE

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL NO. 17-05246

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Commissioner
Social Security Administration

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Tina M. Grube, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking
judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration
(Commissioner) denying her claim for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits
(“DIB”), and supplemental security income (“SSI”) benefits under Titles II and XVI of the
Social Security Act (hereinafter “the Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). 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).
Procedural Background:
Plaintiff protectively filed her applications on June 24, 2013, alleging an inability to
work since July 1, 2015, due to back and neck pain. (Tr. 10, 169, 213). In a later disability
report, Plaintiff reported she had been diagnosed with COPD and had been hospitalized. (Tr.
246). An administrative hearing was held on September 10, 2015, at which plaintiff appeared
with counsel and testified. (Tr. 26-59).
By written decision dated on August 16, 2016, the ALJ found that during the relevant
time period, Plaintiff had an impairment or combination of impairments that were severe:
degenerative disc disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and degenerative
1

joint disease. (Tr. 10-20). However, after reviewing all of the evidence presented, the ALJ
determined that Plaintiff’s impairments did not meet or equal the severity of any impairment
listed in the Listing of Impairments found in Appendix I, Subpart P, Regulation No. 4. (Id.).
The ALJ found Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to:
[P]erform medium work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(c) and 416.967(c)
except that she must avoid hazards, including unprotected heights and
moving machinery and vibrations, and must avoid concentrated exposure to
pulmonary irritants like dusts, odors, and gases. She can freqeuently climb,
balance, craw, kneel, stoop, and crouch; frequently finger and handle
bilaterally; and occasionally reach overhead bilaterally.
(Tr. 13). With the help of the vocational expert (VE), the ALJ determined that during the
relevant time period, Plaintiff was able to perform her past relevant work as a dressed pountry
grader and, in the alternative, would be capable of performing work as an hand packager,
warehouse worker, or deli worker. (Tr. 18-19).
Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this action. (Doc. 1). This case is before the undersigned
pursuant to the consent of the parties. (Doc. 7). Both parties have filed appeal briefs, and the
case is now ready for decision. (Docs. 12, 13).
I.

Applicable Law:
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
2

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).
It is well established that a claimant for Social Security disability benefits has the
burden of proving her disability by establishing a physical or mental disability that has lasted
at least one year and that prevents her 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 her disability, not simply her impairment, has lasted for at least
twelve consecutive months.
The Commissioner’s regulations require her to apply a five-step sequential evaluation
process to each claim for disability benefits: (1) whether the claimant had engaged in
substantial gainful activity since filing her claim; (2) whether the claimant had a severe
physical and/or mental impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the
impairment(s) met or equaled an impairment in the listings; (4) whether the impairment(s)
prevented the claimant from doing past relevant work; and (5) whether the claimant was able
to perform other work in the national economy given her age, education, and experience. See
20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Only if the final stage is reached does the fact finder consider the
Plaintiff’s age, education, and work experience in light of her RFC. See McCoy v. Schneider,

3

683 F.2d 1138, 1141-42 (8th Cir. 1982); 20C.F.R. SS404.1520, abrogated on other grounds by
Higgens v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 504, 505 (8th Cir. 2000); 20 C.F.R §404.1520.
II.

Discussion:
Plaintiff brings the present appeal claiming the ALJ erred in his assessment of

Plaintiff’s credibility, residual functional capacity (RFC), and failed to fully and fairly develop
the record. (Doc. 12, p. 1, 4-9).
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 to support the ALJ’s decision. Accordingly, the ALJ’s decision is hereby

4

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).
III.

Conclusion
Accordingly, having carefully reviewed the record, the Court finds substantial evidence

supporting the ALJ’s decision denying the Plaintiff benefits, and thus the decision is hereby
affirmed. The Plaintiff’s Complaint should be, and is hereby, dismissed with prejudice
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of March, 2019.
/s/ Erin L. Wiedemann
HON. ERIN L. WIEDEMANN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5