Morris v. Colvin
MEMORANDUM OPINION - The Court has reviewed the medical records, the briefs of the parties, and the findings of the ALJ. The Court has likewise thoroughly reviewed each of plaintiff's six arguments that the ALJ erred in his analysis and ultimat e conclusion. The Court finds that the ALJ's analysis and conclusion are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, this Court will affirm the decision. A separate order will be issued in accordance with this memorandum opinion. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (LAC)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
AMANDA ROSE MORRIS,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social
This matter is before the Court for review of a final
decision of the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration (the “Commissioner”), wherein the Commissioner
denied the plaintiff, Amanda Rose Morris’ (“plaintiff” or
“Morris”) request for disability insurance benefits.
review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable
law, the Court finds that the Commissioner’s decision should be
On September 16, 2011, plaintiff “filed applications
for a period of disability and for the payment of disability
insurance benefits under Title II and Title XVI of the Social
Security Act . . . .”
(Filing No. 1 at 2).
applications were denied at the initial and reconsideration
Plaintiff was granted a hearing before an
administrative law judge (“ALJ”) (Id.).
The ALJ denied
plaintiff’s applications on June 26, 2013 (Filing No. 9-4 at 23960).
On August 29, 2014, the Appeals Council denied plaintiff’s
request for review of the ALJ’s decision and stated that the
ALJ’s “decision is the final decision of the Commissioner
. . . .”
(Filing No. 9-2 at 1-4).
On September 22, 2014, in accordance with 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g), plaintiff filed the instant action (Filing No. 1).
January 6, 2016, the case was reassigned to the undersigned for
disposition (Filing No. 25).
Standard of Review
The Commissioner’s decision will be affirmed “if the
record contains substantial evidence to support it.”
Barnhart, 314 F.3d 964, 966 (8th Cir. 2003).
evidence is less than a preponderance, but enough that a
reasonable mind might accept it as adequate to support a
Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2001)
(internal marks and cite omitted).
“In determining whether
existing evidence is substantial, [a court should] consider
evidence that detracts from the Commissioner’s decision as well
as evidence that supports it.”
Hutsell v. Massanari, 259 F.3d
707, 711 (8th Cir. 2001) (internal citation omitted).
record reveals substantial evidence supporting the Commissioner’s
decision, then that decision should not be reversed merely
because “substantial evidence exists in the record that would
have supported a contrary outcome.”
Hutsell, 259 F.3d at 711.
In other words, “[the Court] may not reverse simply because [the
Court] would have decided differently or because substantial
evidence supports a contrary outcome.”
Grable v. Colvin, 770
F.3d 1196, 1201 (8th Cir. 2014) (citing Davis v. Apfel, 239 F.3d
962, 966 (8th Cir. 2001)).
Finally, the claimant “bears the
burden of proving disability.”
Teague v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 611,
615 (8th Cir. 2011).
The Court has reviewed the medical records, the briefs
of the parties, and the findings of the ALJ.
The Court has
likewise thoroughly reviewed each of plaintiff’s six arguments
that the ALJ erred in his analysis and ultimate conclusion.
Court finds that the ALJ’s analysis and conclusion are supported
by substantial evidence.
Accordingly, this Court will affirm the
A separate order will be issued in accordance with
this memorandum opinion.
DATED this 18th day of January, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court
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?