Huse v. Colvin

Filing 21

ORDER re 3 SOCIAL SECURITY COMPLAINT filed by Amber Huse, affirming the decision of the Commissioner. Signed on 5/14/2015 by Magistrate Judge Matt J. Whitworth. (Russell, Elizabeth)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION
AMBER HUSE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 14-5043-SSA-CV-SW-MJW

ORDER
Plaintiff Amber Huse seeks judicial review1 of a final administrative decision denying
plaintiff disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq., and
Supplemental Security Income benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§
1381 et seq. Section 205(g) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) provides for judicial review of a final
decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration under Title II. Section
1631(c)(3) of the Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3) provide for judicial review to the same extent
as the Commissioner’s final determination under section 205.
The parties’ briefs are fully submitted, and an oral argument was held on May 12, 2015.
The complete facts and arguments are presented in the parties’ briefs and will not be repeated
here.
Standard of Review
The Eighth Circuit has set forth the standard for the federal courts’ judicial review of
denial of benefits, as follows:
Our role on review is to determine whether the Commissioner’s findings are supported by
substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Substantial evidence is less than a
preponderance, but is enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support
the Commissioner’s conclusion. In determining whether existing evidence is substantial,
we consider evidence that detracts from the Commissioner’s decision as well as evidence
that supports it. As long as substantial evidence in the record supports the
Commissioner’s decision, we may not reverse it because substantial evidence exists in

1

With the consent of the parties, this case was assigned to the United States Magistrate
Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

the record that would have supported a contrary outcome or because we would have
decided the case differently.
Baker v. Barnhart, 457 F.3d 882, 892 (8th Cir. 2006).
The claimant has the initial burden of establishing the existence of a disability as defined
by 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1). See Roth v. Shalala, 45 F.3d 279, 282 (8th Cir. 1995). To meet the
statutory definition, “the claimant must show (1) that he has a medically determinable physical
or mental impairment which will either last for at least twelve months or result in death, (2) that
he is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity, and (3) that this inability is the result of
his impairment.” McMillian v. Schweiker, 697 F.2d 215, 220 (8th Cir. 1983).
When reviewing the record to determine if there is substantial evidence to support the
administrative decision, the court considers the educational background, work history and
present age of the claimant; subjective complaints of pain or other impairments; claimant’s
description of physical activities and capabilities; the medical opinions given by treating and
examining physicians; the corroboration by third parties of claimant’s impairments; and the
testimony of vocational experts when based upon proper hypothetical questions that fairly set
forth the claimant’s impairments. McMillian, 697 F.2d at 221.
Discussion
After consideration of the parties’ arguments and a review of the record, this Court finds
the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) is supported by substantial evidence in the
record. This Court finds no error by the ALJ. The ALJ provided a well-reasoned and detailed
opinion in his assessment of the medical opinions of record and the plaintiff’s residual functional
capacity. The medical records and record as a whole support that plaintiff’s psychological
symptoms are generally controllable when she is compliant with medication and abstains from
drug abuse.
Accordingly,
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.
Dated this 14th day of May, 2015, at Jefferson City, Missouri.

Matt J. Whitworth 

/s/   

MATT J. WHITWORTH
United States Magistrate Judge
2