Henry v. Colvin
MEMORANDUM OPINION - The Court has reviewed the medical records, the briefs of the parties, and the findings of the Administrative Law Judge. The ALJs analysis is consistent with Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984) and other Eighth Ci rcuit law relating to credibility determinations in social security cases. The ALJs credibility determination was properly supported by substantial evidence in the record. Because the decision is supported by substantial evidence, this Court will affirm the decision. The complaint will be dismissed. 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
MARK S. HENRY,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of the Social
This matter is before the Court for review of a final
decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”), wherein the Commissioner denied plaintiff’s
request for disability insurance benefits.
After careful review
of the briefs, the record before the Court, and the applicable
law, the Court finds that the Commissioner’s decision should be
On February 8, 2012, plaintiff filed an application for
disability, alleging he was unable to work due to psychological
His application was denied, and plaintiff sought
reconsideration, a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge,
and review of the decision by the Appeals Council.
were denied at each of the reviews.
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.
“In determining whether existing evidence is substantial,
[a court should] consider evidence that detracts from the
Commissioner’s decision as a well as evidence that supports it.”
Hutsell v. Massanari, 259 F.3d 707, 711 (8th Cir. 2001).
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 different outcome.”
In other words, “[a]n
administrative decision is not subject to reversal simply because
some evidence may support the opposite outcome.”
Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211 (8th Cir. 2001)(citing Gwathney v.
Chater, 104 F.3d 1043, 1045 (8th Cir. 1993)).
The Court has reviewed the medical records, the briefs
of the parties, and the findings of the Administrative Law Judge.
The ALJ’s analysis is consistent with Polaski v. Heckler, 739
F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984) and other Eighth Circuit law relating
to credibility determinations in social security cases.
ALJ’s credibility determination was properly supported by
substantial evidence in the record.
Because the decision is supported by substantial
evidence, this Court will affirm the decision.
will be dismissed.
A separate order will be issued in accordance
with this memorandum opinion.
DATED this 15th day of September, 2016.
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?