Buford v. Colvin
Filing
16
ORDER AFFIRMING Commissioner's decision denying benefits. Signed on 2/11/16 by District Judge M. Douglas Harpool. (View, Pat)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
TONY BUFORD,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 14-03410-MDH
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s appeal of the Commissioner’s denial of his application for
Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income.
An
Administrative Law Judge denied Plaintiff’s claims and the Appeals Counsel subsequently
denied Plaintiff’s request for review of the ALJ’s determination.
Therefore, Plaintiff has
exhausted his administrative remedies and the matter is now ripe for judicial review. The Court
reviews the Commissioner’s final decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1383(c)(3) and 405(g).
Standard of Review
The Court’s role in reviewing an ALJ’s decision is to determine whether the “findings are
supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.” Page v. Astrue, 484 F.3d 1040,
1042-43 (8th Cir. 2007), citing, Haggard v. Apfel, 175 F.3d 591, 594 (8th Cir.1999).
“Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to
support the Commissioner’s conclusion.” Id. “The fact that some evidence may support a
conclusion opposite from that reached by the Commissioner does not alone permit our reversal
of the Commissioner’s decision.” Id., citing, Kelley v. Barnhart, 372 F.3d 958, 961 (8th Cir.
2004); and Travis v. Astrue, 477 F.3d 1037, 1040 (8th Cir. 2007). If the record contains
substantial evidence to support the Commissioner’s decision, the Court may not reverse the
decision simply because substantial evidence exists in the record that would have supported a
contrary outcome. Krogmeier v. Barnhart, 294 F.3d 1019, 1022 (8th Cir. 2002). In other words,
the Court cannot reverse simply because it would have decided the case differently. Id., citing,
Woolf v. Shalala, 3 F.3d 1210, 1213 (8th Cir. 1993). Courts “defer heavily to the findings and
conclusions of the Social Security Administration” and will disturb the Commissioner’s decision
only if it falls outside the “zone of choice.” Buckner v. Astrue, 646 F.3d 549, 556 (8th Cir. 2011)
(internal citations omitted).
Further, the Court defers to the ALJ’s determinations of the
credibility of witness testimony, as long as the ALJ’s determinations are supported by good
reasons and substantial evidence. Pelkey v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 575, 578 (8th Cir. 2006).
Analysis
Plaintiff argues the ALJ committed the following errors: 1) the RFC is not supported by
substantial evidence; and 2) The ALJ erred in assessing Plaintiff’s credibility.
First, the Court has thoroughly reviewed the administrative record before the Court,
including the medical records, hearing testimony, and the ALJ’s opinion. The Court finds that
the ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole and
was within the available “zone of choice.” The ALJ provided a lengthy analysis of the medical
opinion evidence and properly addressed Plaintiff’s mental limitations, including his citations to
the numerous records regarding Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, the possibility of malingering
as evidenced in the records, and “lack of objective testing or reviewable measurements.” The
2
Court gives great deference to the ALJ’s determination as it falls within an acceptable “zone of
choice” of the finder of fact.
Second, the Court will not disturb the ALJ’s credibility determination.
In finding
Plaintiff’s allegations not completely credible, the ALJ considered such things as Plaintiff’s
reported limitations, the objective medical evidence and medical opinions, Plaintiff’s daily
activities, and Plaintiff’s work history. The Court finds the ALJ recognized the appropriate
analytic framework, considered the appropriate factors, and gave good reasons for discrediting
the claimant’s testimony. See generally Tucker v. Barnhart, 363 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 2004)
(“The ALJ is not required to discuss each Polaski factor as long as the analytical framework is
recognized and considered.”). Accordingly, the Court will defer to the ALJ’s judgment. See
Whitman v. Colvin, 762 F.3d 701, 707 (8th Cir. 2014) (“Questions of credibility are for the ALJ
in the first instance” and “[i]f an ALJ explicitly discredits a claimant’s testimony and gives a
good reason for doing so, we will normally defer to that judgment.”).
Finally, with regard to the ALJ’s error in incorrectly stating Plaintiff had not been
prescribed a TENs unit or been given a steroid injection, the Court finds this misstatement of the
record does not alter the ALJ’s determination based on substantial evidence in the record as a
whole. See Byes v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 913, 917 (8th Cir. 2012) (To show an error was not
harmless, plaintiff must prove the ALJ would have made a different determination if the error
had not occurred.); citing, Van Vickle v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 825, 830 (8th Cir. 2008) (“There is no
indication that the ALJ would have decided differently ... and any error by the ALJ was therefore
harmless.”); and Hensley v. Barnhart, 352 F.3d 353, 357 (8th Cir. 2003) (holding that applying
the incorrect grid rule is harmless error when a claimant is not disabled under the proper rule).
Here, even if the ALJ had not made an error in citing to the medical record, there is no indication
3
that the ALJ would have made a different determination based on substantial evidence in the
record as a whole.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth herein, the Court finds there is substantial evidence on the record
as a whole to support the ALJ’s determination. Accordingly, the Commissioner’s decision
denying benefits is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
February 11, 2016
/s/ Douglas Harpool ________________
DOUGLAS HARPOOL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?