Kearney v. Colvin et al
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM OPINION that the Court finds that the ALJ's analysis and conclusion are supported by substantial evidence. The Court will thus not disturb the ALJ's conclusion. Accordingly, because the decision is supported by substantial evidence, 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. (ADB)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
VALARIE KEARNEY,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
)
Commissioner of Social
)
Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)
8:15CV178
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 the plaintiff,
Valarie Kearney’s (“plaintiff” or “Kearney”) request for
disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income.
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 June 15, 2012, plaintiff applied for disability
benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI
of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq.; 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1381 et seq. (Filing No. 14 at 1).
Her “applications were
denied at the initial and reconsideration levels on July 12, 2012
and September 25, 2012, respectively.”
(Id.) (internal citations
omitted).
Kearney was provided a hearing in front of an
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) on February 5, 2014 (Id.).
“The
ALJ ruled on April 14, 2014 that the [p]laintiff was not entitled
to benefits under Title II or Title XVI of the [Social Security]
Act.”
(Id.) (internal citations omitted).
Following the ALJ’s
denial, Kearney sought review from the Appeals Council, but was
again denied relief on March 24, 2015 (Id.) (internal citation
omitted).
Thus, “the ALJ’s decision stands as the final decision
of the Commissioner . . . .”
(Id.)
In accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), plaintiff filed
the instant action on May 22, 2015, seeking judicial review of
the final administrative decision of the Commissioner (Filing No.
1).
Kearney alleges four assignments of error on the part of the
ALJ support her request that the “case be remanded for an award
of benefits . . . [or,] [i]n the alternative, [that] th[e] case
be remanded for a new hearing and decision.”
18).
(Filing No. 14 at
See also id. at 6-7 (listing specific issues of the case).
According to Kearney, the ALJ:
(1) “failed to fully evaluate and
explain the weight given to the medical opinion evidence in the
record;” (2) based his decision “on a deficient analysis of
[plaintiff’s] residual function capacity;” (3) based his decision
“on a deficient and faulty credibility analysis;” and (4) “failed
in his duty to fully develop the record.”
-2-
(Id. at 7-17).
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.”
Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2001)
(internal marks and cites omitted).
“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) (internal citation omitted).
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.”
Hutsell, 259 F.3d at 711.
In other words, “[a]n administrative decision is not subject to
reversal simply because some evidence may support the opposite
conclusion.”
Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1219 (8th
Cir. 2001)(citing Gwathney v. Chater, 104 F.3d 1043, 1045 (8th
Cir. 1993) (additional citations omitted)).
-3-
CONCLUSION
The Court has reviewed the medical records, the briefs
of the parties, and the findings of the ALJ.
The Court has
likewise reviewed all of plaintiff’s arguments that the ALJ erred
in his analysis and ultimate conclusion.
The Court finds that
the ALJ’s analysis and conclusion are supported by substantial
evidence.
The Court will thus not disturb the ALJ’s conclusion.
Accordingly, because the decision is supported by substantial
evidence, this Court will affirm the decision.
A separate order
will be issued in accordance with this memorandum opinion.
DATED this 22nd day of November, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court
-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?