Carter v. Berryhill

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner denying social security benefits is AFFIRMED. An appropriate Judgment shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 08/21/2018. (KCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

JAMES EARL CARTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:17CV1250 RLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This is an action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) for judicial review of
Defendant's final decision denying Plaintiffs applications for Disability Insurance Benefits
("DIB") under Title II of the Social Security Act and for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI")
under Title XVI of the Act. For the reasons set forth below, the Court affirms the decision of the
Commissioner.
I. Procedural History

Plaintiff protectively filed an application for DIB on June 25, 2013 and an application for
SSI on March 25, 2014. (Tr. 40) Plaintiff alleged disability beginning January 23, 2013 due to
HIV, spinal stenosis, and irritable bowel syndrome. (Tr. 99) Plaintiffs claims were denied, and
Plaintiff filed a request for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). (Tr. 98-114)
On September 8, 2015, Plaintiff testified at a hearing before the ALJ. (Tr. 55-96) In a decision
dated January 5, 2016, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had not been under a disability from
January 23, 2013 through the date of the decision. (Tr. 40-50) On February 6, 2017, the
Appeals Council denied Plaintiffs request for review. (Tr. 1-6) Thus, the decision of the ALJ
stands as the final decision of the Commissioner.

II. Evidence Before the ALJ
At the September 8, 2015 hearing, Plaintiff appeared without counsel. Plaintiff testified
that he was focused on getting his AIDS under control and that the arthritis and spinal stenosis
stemmed from that. The ALJ noted that some medical records were missing. Plaintiff stated that
since September 2013 he only saw Dr. David Parks for treatment. Plaintiff did not have those
records, and the ALJ indicated that his office would request medical records. Plaintiff further
testified that he was treated for a broken leg and ankle resulting from a fall. In addition, he had a
nerve block in his neck. The ALJ emphasized the importance of having all of Plaintiffs medical
records. Plaintiff testified that he saw an orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Zehnder, in December 2013,
along with Dr. Parks. (Tr. 55-72)
Upon questioning by the ALJ, Plaintiff testified that he was 51 years old, weighed 237
pounds, and measured 5 feet, 7 inches. He graduated from high school and had some college
education. Plaintiff last worked on September 26, 2013. He had worked for Overland Shade
Company repairing, installing, cleaning, and ordering window treatments. He believed that he
lifted 150 pounds at the most, and he stood and walked 95 percent of the day. Plaintiff further
testified that he had been dealing with pain for a long time, had limited ability to lift his arms
above his head, experienced migraines, and had difficulty holding his neck up. He stated that
experienced pain in his neck, back, elbow, shoulders, arms, and knees. He took Percocet and
Vitamin D. Plaintiff also had problems in his pelvic/groin area. (Tr. 74-78)
Plaintiff stated he could lift 30 to 40 pounds with his right hand, but he could only lift 5
to 10 pounds with his left hand due to a past elbow dislocation resulting from a motorcycle
accident. He had trouble sitting and standing for long periods of time. Plaintiff believed he
could stand in one place for 20 to 30 minutes before he needed to sit down. He could sit

2

anywhere from 20 minutes to 2 hours before he had to move around. On a typical day, Plaintiff
woke up, cleaned up, watched TV, and tried to walk around the block. He testified that his knees
tightened up and hurt ifhe sat too long. He also went to the store and watched a lot ofNetflix.
He did not have difficulty taking care of himself other than getting in and out of the bathtub. He
was able to cook, do laundry, and drive. (Tr. 78-80)
Plaintiff testified that he was in constant pain with his neck, left arm, left knee, and left
ankle. He had pain in his lower back and sometimes could not walk or stand up. He also
experienced tingling and numbness in his left foot, as well as a spasm in his left leg. Plaintiff
had difficulty with digestion as well. His biggest problem was his neck pain, which caused
migraines, ringing in the ears, and breathing difficulty. In addition, he complained about his lack
of mobility. He had herniated and bulging discs and thought that traction would help.
Medication only helped the pain a little. On an average day, his neck pain was a 12 on a scale of
1to10. (Tr. 80-83)
A Vocational Expert ("VE") also testified at the hearing. The VE stated that Plaintiff had
only one job as an installer for blinds and shades. The occupation was semi-skilled with a
medium exertional level according to the Dictionary of Occupational Titles ("DOT") and a
medium to heavy exertional level as described by Plaintiff. (Tr. 84-86)
The ALJ asked the VE to assume a hypothetical individual of Plaintiffs age, education,
and past job. The person was limited to light work and could lift and carry up to 20 pounds
occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. Further, the individual could stand and/or walk for 6
hours and sit for 6 hours during an 8-hour workday. He could never climb ladders, ropes, and
scaffolds but could occasionally climb ramps and stairs, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl.
In addition, he could never work at unprotected heights or deal with mechanical parts. He could

3

occasionally work in vibration. Given this hypothetical, the VE testified that the individual
could not perform Plaintiff's past job but could perform jobs as a packager, assembler, or
cleaner. (Tr. 86-88)
For the second hypothetical, the ALJ asked the VE to assume a person who could
perform sedentary work; lift and carry up to 10 pounds occasionally and less than 10 pounds
frequently; and stand/walk for 2 hours and sit for 6 hours in an 8-hour workday. The VE
testified that the individual would be unable to perform Plaintiff's past job or any other work.
Plaintiff asked the VE about jobs allowing an employee to lie down or go home ifhe or she felt
sick. The VE stated that any interference with the flow of work would prevent an individual
from working in the national economy. The ALJ kept the record open to obtain medical records
from Dr. Parks and Dr. Zehnder. (Tr. 88-96)
In a Function Report-Adult dated October 19, 2013, Plaintiff reported that he spent the
day watching TV, doing chores, fixing meals, walking around the block, and visiting with
neighbors. Plaintiff was able to take care of his personal needs; prepare meals; perform house
and yard work; drive; shop for food, clothes, and entertainment; handle money; and socialize.
He had problems getting along with his family. Plaintiff reported that his conditions affected his
ability to lift, squat, bend, stand, climb stairs, concentrate, and use his hands. He had bulging
and herniated discs that made movement painful, and his migraines caused difficulty with
concentration. He believed he could walk 5 blocks before needing to rest for 2 minutes. He was
able to follow written and spoken instructions very well. Plaintiff also handled stress and
changes in a routine very well. (Tr. 238-45)

4

III. Medical Evidence
On March 4, 2013, Plaintiff established care with Dr. David A. Parks. Plaintiff
complained of abdominal pain, HIV, and GERD/gastritis. He also complained of migraine
headaches, irritable bowel syndrome, fatigue, and shortness of breath. Plaintiff had been
diagnosed with HIV in January 2013, but he was more concerned with the abdominal pain. Dr.
Parks noted that Plaintiff was evasive about his past medical history and did not answer many
questions asked. Dr. Parks stated that it was difficult to determine a comprehensive assessment
of Plaintiff and that a psychiatric diagnosis was likely. Dr. Parks diagnosed irritable bowel
syndrome, shortness of breath, HIV, unspecified communicable disease, abdominal pain,
migraine, bum of trunk, headache, and other malaise and fatigue. (Tr. 365-68)
Plaintiff returned to Dr. Parks on April 5, 2013. Plaintiffs complaints included
HIVI AIDS, anxiety/depression, chronic multiple joint pain, and chronic C-spine degenerative
disc disease with bilateral radicular pain. Dr. Parks noted limited range of motion of shoulders
secondary to pain of neck and radicular pain to arms. Plaintiff also had limited range of motion
of hips, knees, and ankles secondary to arthritic changes. Dr. Parks prescribed medication and
advised Plaintiff to follow up in one month. (Tr. 378)
On April 12, 2013, Plaintiff complained of fatigue. He also decided to participate in an
HIV study. (Tr. 377) On May 10, 2013, Plaintiffs complaints included neck pain, HIV, pain in
left arm, and itchy skin rash. He had cervical tenderness and pain when rotating his neck with
radiation to his shoulders. In addition, Plaintiff had full range of motion of extremities, chest,
and back with no muscular pain. His mental status appeared anxious, depressed, with an
abnormal affect. Dr. Parks noted that medication had improved Plaintiffs mood slightly. Dr.
Parkes assessed HIV, scabies, irritable bowel syndrome, shortness of breath, migraine, fatigue,

5

unspecified vitamin D deficiency, herpes simplex, burn of trunk, and esophageal reflux. (Tr.
372-76)
Follow up visits with Dr. Parks on May 24, 2013 and June 7, 2013 showed urethritis and
cheilitis in addition to his other complaints. Testing revealed gonorrhea, which Dr. Parks treated
with medication. (Tr. 370-71)
On July 5, 2013, Plaintiff returned to Dr. Parks for a follow-up on his HIV study.
Plaintiff complained of fatigue and diffuse joint pain. Dr. Parks advised Plaintiff about the
importance of adherence and taking medications as directed. (Tr. 369) On August 30, 2013,
Plaintiff reported that his abdominal pain and his anxiety, depression, and insomnia were much
improved. (Tr. 360-64)
On September 16, 2013, Plaintiff underwent an MRI of the lumbar spine. He complained
of low back pain and leg pain with the pain on the left greater than the right. The MRI revealed
disc bulging and degenerative changes associated with moderate spinal stenosis at the L4-L5
level. Left posterolateral disc herniation was also evident. Plaintiff also complained of right
shoulder pain and right neck pain. An MRI of the cervical spine performed on September 19,
2013 showed disc bulging and degenerative changes resulting in mild circumferential narrowing
of the spinal canal at the C3-C4 level and foraminal narrowing at multiple levels. (Tr. 346-49)
On September 27, 2013, Plaintiff attended a follow-up visit with Dr. Parks. Plaintiffs
chief complaint was fatigue. Musculoskeletal exam revealed limited range of motion of the low
back and neck pain. Plaintiff had radicular pain in upper extremities on the left C4, C5
distribution and bilaterally at L4 with decreased sensation in the ulnar nerve distribution. Dr.
Parks recommended nerve root injections and physical therapy. (Tr. 354-59) On October 25,

6

2013, Plaintiff complained of malaise and fatigue, as well as a bump and bruise above the right
leg ankle from September 15. (Tr. 538-41)
On December 12, 2013, non-examining consultant Margaret Sullivan, Ph.D. noted that
Plaintiff did not allege a psychiatric impairment. However, he had a diagnosis of anxiety,
depression, and insomnia. Dr. Sullivan opined that Plaintiffs mental impairments were
improved with medication and were not severe. (Tr. 101-02)
Plaintiff was treated by Dr. Scott W. Zehnder on December 13, 2013 for complaints of a
left fibula fracture after falling down the stairs and inverting his left ankle 5 weeks ago. Dr.
Zehnder advised Plaintiff to wear an air cast boot and return in 6 weeks. (Tr. 565-66)
On January 9, 2014, Plaintiff received a cervical root block of the left C3-C4. (Tr. 55253) A cervical spine MRI on January 16, 2014 revealed left-sided neural foraminal narrowing of
the C3/4 level resulting from facet and uncovertebral disease. (Tr. 554)
Plaintiff returned to Dr. Zehnder on February 13, 2014. Dr. Zehnder assessed a left ankle
bimalleolar fracture and prescribed physical therapy. (Tr. 568-69) On April 10, 2014, Dr.
Zehnder noted that Plaintiffs ankle improved and that Plaintiff was tolerating swelling and
occasional pain with no real complaints. Plaintiff told Dr. Zehnder that he was back to work.
(Tr. 563-64)
In 2015, Plaintiff continued seeing Dr. Parks for evaluation and management of
Plaintiffs HIV and other conditions. Plaintiff complained of pain in his left knee. Dr. Parks
noted mild tenderness to the left knee, some mild edema around the patella, and mild discomfort
with weight bearing and walking. Dr. Parks also noted full range of motion of extremities, chest,
and back. Mental status was normal. Plaintiff reported doing very well overall with no adverse
effects from medication. (Tr. 496-519)

7

IV. The ALJ's Determination
In a decision dated January 5, 2016, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff met the insured
status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2018. He had engaged in
substantial gainful employment from the alleged onset date through September 2013. However,
Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity for a continuous 12-month period. The
ALJ found that Plaintiff had severe impairments including lumbar and cervical spine disc
bulging and degenerative disc disease with stenosis, osteopenia, and neuralgia; human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV); and obesity. Plaintiffs other impairments of migraines, irritable
bowel syndrome, history of left elbow dislocation, hypertension, GERD, hypogonadism,
insomnia, and herpes simplex were well-managed with conservative treatment and were not
severe. In addition, Plaintiffs depression and anxiety did not cause more than minimal
limitation in his ability to perform basic mental work activities and were non-severe. (Tr. 40-44)
The ALJ determined that Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20
C.F .R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. Upon consideration of the record, the ALJ found that
Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform light work in that he could lift
and carry up to 20 pounds occasionally and up to 10 pounds frequently; stand and/or walk for 6
hours in an 8-hour workday; and sit for 6 hours in an 8-hour workday. In addition, Plaintiff
should never climb ladders, ropes, and scaffolds. He could occasionally climb ramps and stairs;
balance; stoop; kneel; crouch; and crawl. He should never work at unprotected heights or with
moving mechanical parts. Plaintiff was able to occasionally work in vibration. The ALJ
determined that Plaintiff was unable to perform any past relevant work. However, based on his
age, at least high school education, work experience, and RFC, the ALJ found that jobs existed in

8

significant numbers in the national economy which Plaintiff could perform. These jobs included
packaging, assembler, and cleaner. Therefore, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not under a
disability from January 23, 2013 through the date of the decision. (Tr. 44-49)
V. Legal Standards
A claimant for social security disability benefits must demonstrate that he or she suffers
from a physical or mental disability. The Social Security Act defines disability "as the inability
to do any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental
impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to
last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1505(a).
To determine whether a claimant is disabled, the Commissioner engages in a five step
evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). Those steps require a claimant to show: (1)
that claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) that he has a severe physical or
mental impairment or combination of impairments which meets the duration requirement; or (3)
he has an impairment which meets or exceeds one of the impairments listed in 20 C.F .R.,
Subpart P, Appendix 1; (4) he is unable to return to his past relevant work; and (5) his
impairments prevent him from doing any other work. Id
The Court must affirm the decision of the ALJ if it is supported by substantial evidence.
42 U.S.C. § 405(g). "Substantial evidence means less than a preponderance, but sufficient
evidence that a reasonable person would find adequate to support the decision." Hulsey v.
Astrue, 622 F.3d 917, 922 (8th Cir. 2010). "We will not disturb the denial of benefits so long as
the ALJ' s decision falls within the available zone of choice. An ALJ' s decision is not outside the
zone of choice simply because we might have reached a different conclusion had we been the
initial finder of fact." Buckner v. Astrue, 646 F.3d 549, 556 (8th Cir. 2011) (citations and internal

9

quotations omitted). Instead, even if it is possible to draw two different conclusions from the
evidence, the Court must affirm the Commissioner's decision if it is supported by substantial
evidence. See Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065, 1068 (8th Cir. 2000).
To determine whether the Commissioner's final decision is supported by substantial
evidence, the Court must review the administrative record as a whole and consider: (1) the
credibility findings made by the ALJ; (2) the plaintiffs vocational factors; (3) the medical
evidence from treating and consulting physicians; (4) the plaintiffs subjective complaints
regarding exertional and non-exertional activities and impairments; (5) any corroboration by
third parties of the plaintiffs impairments; and (6) the testimony of vocational experts when
required which is based upon a proper hypothetical question that sets forth the plaintiffs
impairment. Johnson v. Chafer, 108 F.3d 942, 944 (8th Cir. 1997) (citations and internal
quotations omitted).
The ALJ may discount a plaintiffs subjective complaints if they are inconsistent with the
evidence as a whole, but the law requires the ALJ to make express credibility determinations and
set forth the inconsistencies in the record. Marciniak v. Shala/a, 49 F .3d 1350, 1354 (8th Cir.
1995). It is not enough that the record contain inconsistencies; the ALJ must specifically
demonstrate that she considered all the evidence. Id.
When a plaintiff claims that the ALJ failed to properly consider subjective complaints,
the duty of the court is to ascertain whether the ALJ considered all of the evidence relevant to
plaintiffs complaints under the Polaski 1 factors and whether the evidence so contradicts

1

The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals "has long required an ALJ to consider the following
factors when evaluating a claimant's credibility: '(1) the claimant's daily activities; (2) the
duration, intensity, and frequency of pain; (3) the precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the
dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; (5) any functional restrictions; (6) the
claimant's work history; and (7) the absence of objective medical evidence to support the
10

plaintiffs subjective complaints that the ALJ could discount the testimony as not credible.
Blakeman v. Astrue, 509 F .3d 878, 879 (8th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). If inconsistencies in

the record and a lack of supporting medical evidence support the ALJ' s decision, the Court will
not reverse the decision simply because some evidence may support the opposite conclusion.
Marciniak, 49 F.3d at 1354.

VI. Discussion
In his brief in support of the Complaint, Plaintiff raises two arguments. First, Plaintiff
asserts that substantial evidence does not support the RFC finding because the ALJ erroneously
"played doctor" and used his lay opinion to interpret the medical data in determining Plaintiffs
RFC. Second, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to fully and fairly develop the record by
failing to obtain opinion evidence regarding Plaintiffs functional limitations. Defendant
responds that the ALJ properly assessed Plaintiffs RFC based on the medical treatment records
and other relevant evidence.
A. Plaintiff's RFC Determination
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly determined Plaintiffs RFC by relying on the
ALJ' s own medical opinion and not evidence in the record. RFC is defined as the most that a
claimant can still do in a work setting despite that claimant's physical or mental limitations.
Martise v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 909, 923 (8th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted); 20 C.F.R. §

404.1545(a)(l). The ALJ determines a claimant's RFC '"based on all the relevant evidence,
including medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and [claimant's] own
description of [his] limitations."' Page v. Astrue, 484 F.3d 1040, 1043 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting
Anderson v. Shala/a, 51 F.3d 777, 779 (8th Cir. 1995)). Because "'[t]he ALJ bears the primary

claimant's complaints."' Buckner, 646 F.3d at 558 (quoting Moore v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 520, 524
(8th Cir. 2009) (citing Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984)).
11

responsibility for determining a claimant's RFC and because RFC is a medical question, some
medical evidence must support the determination of the claimant's RFC."' Martise, 641 F.3d at
923 (quoting Vossen v. Astrue, 612 F.3d 1011, 1016 (8th Cir.2010)). "However, the burden of
persuasion to prove disability and demonstrate RFC remains on the claimant." Vossen, 612 F.3d
at 1016; Martise, 641 F.3d at 923.
The record shows that the ALJ properly considered the medical evidence and based the
RFC determination on all of the evidence contained in the record. "'Even though the RFC
assessment draws from medical sources for support, it is ultimately an administrative
determination reserved to the Commissioner."' Perks v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 1086, 1092 (8th Cir.
2012) (quoting Cox v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 614, 619-20)). The ALJ found that Plaintiff had the RFC
to perform light work with additional limitations. The ALJ noted that the medical record showed
that Plaintiffs impairments were managed with minimal treatment, with a lack of any treatment
between late 2013 and March 2015. Further, the findings during exams showed mild tenderness
in some areas with full range of motion in his extremities, back and neck. In addition, the
treatment was conservative, and Plaintiffs pain was managed with medication. (Tr. 46-47) "'If
an impairment can be controlled by treatment or medication, it cannot be considered disabling."'

Brown v. Astrue, 611 F.3d 941, 955 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Brace v. Astrue, 578 F.3d 882, 885
(8th Cir. 2009)).
The ALJ also noted that Plaintiff maintained a high level of activity despite his alleged
impairments. Plaintiff indicated that he could do laundry, wash dishes, cook, drive, walk around
the block on a daily basis, perform house and yard work, and take care of his daily needs. The
Court finds that these daily activities, in conjunction with the medical evidence, support the
ALJ's determination that Plaintiff was able to perform light work. See Id. (finding substantial

12

evidence supported a conclusion that the plaintiff was not disabled where she was able to clean,
cook, work out, visit family, take care of personal needs, do laundry, shop, and drive).
Further, the ALJ considered Plaintiffs strong work history but noted that Plaintiff
continued working after this alleged date of disability. The ALJ found that Plaintiff did not
receive treatment right after he voluntarily resigned in 2013, and when he returned to treatment
in March 2015 he was doing well with minimal findings on exam. (Tr. 48) The ability to work
with an alleged impairment and with no evidence of significant deterioration in a plaintiffs
condition demonstrates that the impairments are not disabling. Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785,
792-93 (8th Cir. 2005).
In addition to discussing Plaintiffs activities which conflicted with his allegations of
disability, the ALJ thoroughly assessed the medical evidence as noted above. While the ALJ
acknowledged Plaintiffs allegations of disabling symptoms and MRI results showing some
abnormalities, the ALJ also noted the normal physical exams with only mild findings. In
addition, the ALJ accounted for the diagnose of neuralgia, stenosis and osteopenia by adding
specific limitations in the RFC, including weight lifting limitations, climbing restrictions,
postural limitations, and restrictions with regard to heights, moving parts, and vibration. (Tr. 46)
Thus, the Court concludes that substantial evidence supports the ALJ' s RFC determination. See
Cypress v. Colvin, 807 F.3d 948, 951 (8th Cir. 2015) (finding the ALJ's determination of

plaintiffs RFC was supported by substantial evidence where there were no medically
determinable impairments to support the level of pain alleged by plaintiff, treating physicians
consistently noted normal strength, MRI tests showed only mild osteoarthritis, and medication
controlled the plaintiffs pain).

13

B. Development of the Record

Next, Plaintiff claims that the ALJ failed to properly develop the record and should have
either contacted Plaintiffs treating physician for clarification or ordered a consultative
examination to obtain opinion evidence related to Plaintiffs physical limitations. With regard to
consultative examinations, "[t]he ALJ is required to order medical examinations and tests only if
the medical records presented to him do not give sufficient medical evidence to determine
whether Plaintiff is disabled." McCoy v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 605, 612 (8th Cir. 2011) (citation
omitted). Further, the duty to re-contact a treating physician for clarification arises only if a
crucial issue is undeveloped. Ellis v. Barnhart, 392 F.3d 988, 994 (8th Cir. 2005). Here, the
record contained thorough documentation of Plaintiffs impairments. In addition, the ALJ held
the record open to provide Plaintiff the opportunity to submit additional medical evidence.
"[T]he fact that [Plaintiff] appeared pro se does not relieve him of the burden to establish
disability." Whitman v. Colvin, 762 F.3d 701, 707 (8th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). '"[T]he
ALJ is not required to function as the claimant's substitute counsel, but only to develop a
reasonably complete record."' Id (quoting Clark v. Shala/a, 28 F.3d 828, 830-31 (8th
Cir.1994)). The Court finds that the ALJ sufficiently developed the record in this case.
Therefore, the ALJ did not breach a duty to develop the record because the record contained
sufficient evidence from which to make an informed decision. Ulrich v. Astrue, No. 2: 1OCV89
JCH(LMB), 2011 WL 7401681, at *13 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 2, 2011). Thus, the Court concludes that
substantial evidence based on the record as a whole supports the ALJ' s determination that
Plaintiff is not disabled.
Accordingly,

14

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner denying social
security benefits is AFFIRMED. An appropriate Judgment shall accompany this Memorandum
and Order.
Dated this 21st day of August, 2018.

7?~~

RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15