Parker v. Colvin

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM OPINION - The Court has reviewed the medical records, the briefs of the parties, and the findings of the ALJ. The Court has likewise reviewed plaintiff's arguments that the ALJ erred in his analysis and ultimate conclusion. The Co urt 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. Plaintiff's 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
BUDDY PARKER,

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

8:15CV186

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,
Buddy Parker’s (“plaintiff” or “Parker”) 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
Plaintiff claims his disabilities began on July 1, 2012
(Filing No. 26 at 6).

On July 9, 2013, plaintiff filed for

Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplement Security Income
under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 401 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 1381a (Filing No. 1 at 1; Filing No.
25 at 6).

The Social Security Administration denied both

plaintiff’s initial application and his request for
reconsideration (Filing No. 29 at 3 (citing Tr. 131, 132, 241-44,
245-48, 169-81, 182-94)).

Plaintiff sought and received a

hearing in front of an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), who held
a hearing on February 24, 2015 (Id. (citing Tr. 261-62, 77-108)).
On March 25, 2015, the ALJ found plaintiff was not disabled
within the meaning of the Social Security Act (Id. (citing Tr.
30)).

Following the denial of benefits by the ALJ, plaintiff

sought review of the ALJ’s decision (Id. (citing Tr. 9-11)).

On

April 2, 2015, the Appeals Council denied plaintiff’s request
“making the ALJ’s March 26, 2015 decision the final decision
subject to judicial review under § 405(g) (Id. (citing Tr. 911)).

This action followed.

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.”
-2-

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.”

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
outcome.”

Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1219 (8th Cir.

2001)(citing Gwathney v. Chater, 104 F.3d 1043, 1045 (8th Cir.
1993)).
CONCLUSION
The Court has reviewed the medical records, the briefs
of the parties, and the findings of the ALJ.

The Court has

likewise reviewed 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.

-3-

Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed.

A separate order will

be issued in accordance with this memorandum opinion.
DATED this 7th day of November, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court

-4-