Miller v. Berryhill
MEMORANDUM OPINION - The Court has reviewed the voluminous 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 the 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. 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. (KLF)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
KIMBERLY L. MILLER,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of the Social
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion
for an order reversing the decision of the Acting Commissioner
(Filing No. 12) and defendant’s motion to affirm that decision
(Filing No. 14).
The Acting Commissioner of Social Security (the
“Commissioner”) denied Kimberly L. Miller’s (“plaintiff” or
“Miller”) request for disability insurance benefits.
careful review of the briefs, the entire record before the Court,
and the applicable law, the Court finds that the Commissioner’s
decision should be affirmed.
On October 10, 2013, plaintiff applied for disability
insurance benefits with the Social Security Administration.
Plaintiff’s claims were initially denied on December 22, 2015,
and also upon reconsideration.
A hearing was conducted before an
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) on November 19, 2015.
held that plaintiff was not disabled under the Social Security
Act and denied plaintiff disability insurance benefits in
The Appeals Council denied plaintiff’s request
for review on February 14, 2017, making the ALJ decision the
final decision of the Commissioner.
On April 6, 2017, the
plaintiff filed a complaint with the Court seeking judicial
review of the Commissioner’s decision (Filing No. 1).
II. 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 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.”
Hutsell, 259 F.3d at 711.
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 voluminous medical records,
the briefs of the parties, and the findings of the ALJ.
Court has likewise reviewed plaintiff’s arguments that the ALJ
erred in the analysis and ultimate conclusion.
The Court finds
that the ALJ’s analysis and conclusion are supported by
The Court will thus not disturb the ALJ’s
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.
DATED this 23rd day of October, 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?