Marshall v. Astrue

Filing 19

ORDER by Judge David P. Rush affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Elayer, Glenda)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
THERESA A. MARSHALL,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security, 1
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 12-3094-CV-DPR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Disability Insurance Benefits and
Supplemental Security Income to Plaintiff Theresa A. Marshall in a decision dated September
24, 2010 (Tr. 18-28). The Appeals Counsel denied review. Thus, the ALJ’s decision became the
Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying benefits. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); 20
C.F.R. § 404.981; 20 C.F.R. § 416.1481. For the reasons set forth below, the decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED.
LEGAL STANDARDS
Judicial review of a denial of disability benefits is limited to whether there is substantial
evidence on the record as a whole to support the Social Security Administration’s decision. 42
U.S.C. § 405(g); Minor v. Astrue, 574 F.3d 625, 627 (8th Cir. 2009). Substantial evidence is
“‘such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’”
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. V. NLRB,
1

Carolyn W. Colvin became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on February 14, 2013.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Carolyn W. Colvin is substituted for Michael J. Astrue as
defendant in this action.

305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)).

“Substantial evidence on the record as a whole,” however,

requires a more exacting analysis, which also takes into account “whatever in the record fairly
detracts from its weight.” Minor, 574 F.3d at 627 (quoting Wilson v. Sullivan, 886 F.2d 172,
175 (8th Cir. 1989)). Thus, where it is possible to draw two inconsistent conclusions from the
evidence, and one conclusion represents the ALJ’s findings, a court must affirm the decision.
See Robinson v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 836, 838 (8th Cir. 1992) (citing Cruse v. Bowen, 867 F.2d
1183, 1184 (8th Cir. 1989)). In other words, a court should not disturb an ALJ’s denial of
benefits if the decision “falls within the available zone of choice.” Buckner v. Astrue, 646 F.3d
549, 556 (8th Cir. 2011). A decision may fall within the “zone of choice” even where the
court “might have reached a different conclusion had [the court] been the initial finder of fact.”
Id. (quoting Bradley v. Astrue, 528 F.3d 1113, 1115 (8th Cir. 2008)). A reviewing court is
directed to “defer heavily to the findings and conclusions” of the Social Security
Administration. Howard v. Massanari, 255 F.3d 577, 581 (8th Cir. 2001).
ANALYSIS
The operative facts and arguments are thoroughly presented in the parties’ briefs and
will not be duplicated here. Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred by improperly weighing the
opinion evidence in the record and assessing the claimant’s credibility, therefore improperly
determining the claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC). Plaintiff further maintains that
the Appeals Council did not properly review new evidence submitted after the ALJ issued his
decision (Doc. 11). The Court has reviewed the medical evidence in the record, the hearing
testimony, and the ALJ’s opinion, and finds, consistent with the arguments of the defendant,
that the ALJ’s decision is based upon substantial evidence on the record as a whole.

2

The ALJ did not err in assessing the claimant’s RFC.

He gave good reasons for

according limited weight to the claimant’s treating therapist and explained the greater weight
given to the consultant’s opinion, which is the ALJ’s responsibility. See Pearsall v. Massanari,
274 F.3d 1211, 1219 (8th Cir. 2001) (“It is the ALJ’s function to resolve conflicts among the
opinions of various treating and examining physicians.”). The ALJ also properly discussed his
reasons for finding the claimant not credible, including lack of medical findings to support the
subjective complaints, lack of treatment, noncompliance with medications, cancellation of
appointments, her day-to-day activities, and her sporadic work during her alleged period of
disability.
Regarding the medical records submitted after the ALJ issued his decision, the Appeals
Council acknowledged receipt of this medical evidence, but determined that the additional
records all post-dated, and therefore did not affect, the period of consideration for disability
(Tr. 2).

Having reviewed the additional evidence, the undersigned finds that substantial

evidence supports the determination of the Appeals Council.
Based upon review of the evidence of record, the Court finds substantial evidence to
support the ALJ’s decision.

Taken together, the ALJ’s opinion is based upon substantial

evidence on the record as a whole. Furthermore, the decision falls within the acceptable “zone
of choice” of the finder of fact, to which the court gives great deference. Accordingly, the
Court will not disturb the ALJ’s denial of benefits.
Therefore, based on all the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 24, 2013
3

/s/ David P. Rush
DAVID P. RUSH
United States Magistrate Judge

4