Atkinson v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Erin L. Wiedemann on May 14, 2019. (tg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
SAMUEL ATKINSON
v.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL NO. 18-5009
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Commissioner
Social Security Administration
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Samuel Atkinson, 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 claims for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits
(DIB) under the provisions of Title II 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 his current application for DIB on June 3, 2015, alleging an
inability to work since April 7, 2015, due to his knees, hips, back, shoulders, anxiety,
depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and slight diabetes.
(Tr. 108-109, 186).
An
administrative hearing was held on May 9, 2016, at which Plaintiff appeared with counsel
and testified. (Tr. 59-106).
By written decision dated January 4, 2017, the ALJ found that during the relevant
time period, Plaintiff had an impairment or combination of impairments that were severe.
(Tr. 20).
Specifically, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments:
osteoarthritis/degenerative disc disease of his lumbar spine, mild osteoarthritis of his right
shoulder, left knee effusion, major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder
1
(PTSD), and a history of traumatic brain injury (TBI). 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. 21). The ALJ found Plaintiff retained the
residual functional capacity (RFC) to:
perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) except he can only
occasionally climb ramps and stairs, he can never climb ladders, ropes and
scaffolds, and he can only occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch and
crawl. He must avoid concentrated exposure to hazards including no driving
as part of work. He is able to perform work where interpersonal contact with
coworkers and supervisors is incidental to the work performed and there is no
contact with the public. He can perform work where the complexity of tasks
is learned and performed by rote with few variables and little judgment, and
where the supervision required is simple, direct and concrete.
(Tr. 23). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ determined Plaintiff could perform
light work as a deli cutter slicer, a housekeeping cleaner and an apparel stock checker; and
sedentary work as an addressing clerk, a pneumatic tube operator and a table worker. (Tr.
29-30).
Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council,
which denied that request on November 18, 2017 (Tr. 1-6). 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. 14, 15).
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
2
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. 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 14th day of May 2019.
/s/ Erin L. Wiedemann
HON. ERIN L. WIEDEMANN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3
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?