Henry v. Colvin

Filing 17

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,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
)
Commissioner of the Social
)
Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)

8:15CV34

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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
affirmed.
BACKGROUND
On February 8, 2012, plaintiff filed an application for
disability, alleging he was unable to work due to psychological
impairments.

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.

His claims

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).

Edwards v.

“Substantial

evidence is less than a preponderance, but enough that a
reasonable mind might accept it as adequate to support a
decision.”
2001).

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).

If the

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.”

Id.

In other words, “[a]n

administrative decision is not subject to reversal simply because
some evidence may support the opposite outcome.”

Pearsall v.

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

-2-

F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984) and other Eighth Circuit law relating
to credibility determinations in social security cases.

The

ALJ’s credibility determination was properly supported by
substantial evidence in the record.
CONCLUSION
Because the decision is supported by substantial
evidence, this Court will affirm the decision.
will be dismissed.

The complaint

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

-3-