Starforth v. Astrue

Filing 12

ORDER - plaintiff's Motion to Reverse the ALJ is DENIED and the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. Signed on 8/3/12 by Chief District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. (Enss, Rhonda)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
MARK A. STARFORTH,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) No. 11-1031-CV-W-FJG
)
)
)
)

ORDER
This action is a proceeding for supplemental security income benefits under Title
XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381, et seq. On April 27, 2010, plaintiff
filed applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income.
Plaintiff’s applications were denied initially. Plaintiff appealed the denials to an
administrative law judge. On July 13, 2011, following a hearing the ALJ found that
plaintiff was not disabled. Plaintiff requested a review of that decision and on September
15, 2011, the Appeals Council denied plaintiff’s request for review. Thus, the decision of
the ALJ stands as the final decision of the Commissioner. Plaintiff amended his date of
onset to April 20, 2010, when he filed his Complaint in this Court. In doing so, he
withdrew his application for Title II benefits. The facts and arguments are presented in
the parties' briefs and will not be repeated here.
The Eighth Circuit recently stated the standard for judicial review of an ALJ's
denial of benefits:
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 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), citing, McKinney v. Apfel, 228 F.3d
860, 863 (8th Cir.2000).
The Court has reviewed the parties' briefs, the decision of the ALJ, the transcript
of the hearing and the medical and documentary evidence. After this review, the Court
finds substantial evidence in the record to support the Commissioner's decision.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Reverse the ALJ is hereby
DENIED (Doc. # 7) and the decision of the Commissioner is hereby AFFIRMED.

Date: August 3, 2012
Kansas City, Missouri

S/ FERNANDO J. GAITAN, JR.
Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr.
Chief United States District Judge