Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Finley v. Colvin

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division

July 8, 2014

JAMES BRYAN FINLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BARRY A. BRYANT, Magistrate Judge.

James Bryan Finley ("Plaintiff") brings this action pursuant to § 205(g) of Title II of the Social Security Act ("The Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2010), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("SSA") denying his application for a period of disability and Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") under Title II of the Act. The Parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge to conduct any and all proceedings in this case, including conducting the trial, ordering the entry of a final judgment, and conducting all post-judgment proceedings. ECF No. 6.[1] Pursuant to this authority, the Court issues this memorandum opinion and orders the entry of a final judgment in this matter.

1. Background:

Plaintiff protectively filed his disability application on April 14, 2011. (Tr. 18, 124-130). In his application, Plaintiff claims to be disabled due to knee problems, weakness, anxiety, and depression. (Tr. 166). Plaintiff alleges an onset date of January 9, 2011. (Tr. 18, 124). This application was denied initially and again upon reconsideration. (Tr. 71-72). Thereafter, on January 9, 2012, Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing his application, and this hearing request was granted. (Tr. 81-82).

Plaintiff's administrative hearing was held on November 2, 2012 in Hot Springs, Arkansas. (Tr. 33-70). Plaintiff was present at this hearing and was represented by John Howard. Id. Plaintiff and Vocational Expert ("VE") Diane Smith testified at this hearing. Id. On the date of this hearing, Plaintiff was forty-five (45) years old, which is defined as a "younger person" under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(c) (2008) (DIB). (Tr. 39).

On December 14, 2012, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff's application for DIB. (Tr. 15-28). In this decision, the ALJ found Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Act through December 31, 2015. (Tr. 20, Finding 1). The ALJ found Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity ("SGA") since January 10, 2011, his alleged onset date. (Tr. 20, Finding 2). The ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: left knee medial meniscus tear/medial formal condyle defect status post surgery, anxiety disorder, and mood disorder. (Tr. 20-21, Finding 3). However, the ALJ determined Plaintiff's impairments did not meet or medically equal the requirements of any of the Listings of Impairments in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Regulations No. 4 ("Listings"). (Tr. 21-22, Finding 4).

In this decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints and determined his RFC. (Tr. 23-27, Finding 5). First, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints and found his claimed limitations were not entirely credible. Id. Second, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the RFC to perform a limited range of light work:

After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform a limited range of light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b). Specifically, the claimant is limited to lifting and/or carrying 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; standing and/or for up to 6 hours in an 8-hour workday; and, sitting for up to 6 hours in an 8-hour workday. Additionally, the claimant is limited to occasionally climbing stairs or ladders, kneeling, and crawling. Further, the claimant cannot sustain work without the option to sit/stand every 60 minutes. Morever, although the claimant's gait was unremarkable, he indicated that he occasionally has problems walking during the winter months; therefore, he cannot sustain work without the use of a cane to walk. While using a cane, the claimant's other hand is free to carry small objects. Mentally, the claimant is able to perform work where interpersonal contact is routine, but superficial, as with a grocery checker where the complexity of tasks are learned and performed by experience with several variables. The claimant can use judgment within limits. Lastly, the claimant can perform work where the supervision is little for routine work but detailed for non-routine work. [footnote omitted]

Id.

The ALJ determined Plaintiff had at least a high school education and was able to communicate in English. (Tr. 27, Finding 8). The ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's Past Relevant Work ("PRW"). (Tr. 27, Finding 6). The ALJ determined Plaintiff did not retain the capacity to perform his PRW. Id. The ALJ then evaluated whether Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. (Tr. 27-28, Finding 10). The ALJ relied upon the testimony of the VE to make this determination. Id. Specifically, based upon that testimony, the ALJ found Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform the requirements of the representative occupation of machine tender (light, semiskilled) with 1, 100 such jobs locally; 5, 200 such jobs regionally; and 160, 000 such jobs nationally. (Tr. 28). Because Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform this other work, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined in the Act, from January 10, 2011 through the date of the ALJ's decision or through December 14, 2012. (Tr. 28, Finding 11).

Thereafter, Plaintiff requested the Appeals Council's review of the ALJ's unfavorable decision. (Tr. 13). On June 12, 2013, the Appeals Council denied this request for review of the ALJ's unfavorable determination. (Tr. 1-3). On August 16, 2013, Plaintiff filed the present appeal. ECF No. 1. The Parties consented to the jurisdiction of this Court on September 6, 2013. ECF No. 6. Both Parties have filed appeal briefs. ECF Nos. 11-12. This case is now ready for decision.

2. Applicable Law:

In reviewing this case, this Court is required to determine whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2006); Ramirez v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 576, 583 (8th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance of the evidence, but it is enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support the Commissioner's decision. See Johnson v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1145, 1147 (8th Cir. 2001). As long as there is substantial evidence in the record that supports the Commissioner's decision, the Court may not reverse it simply because substantial evidence exists in the record that would have supported a contrary outcome or because the Court would have decided the case differently. See Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2001). If, after reviewing the record, it is possible to draw two inconsistent positions from the evidence and one of those positions represents the findings of the ALJ, the decision of the ALJ must be affirmed. See Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065, 1068 (8th Cir. 2000).

It is well-established that a claimant for Social Security disability benefits has the burden of proving his or her disability by establishing a physical or mental disability that lasted at least one year and that prevents him or her from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. See Cox v. Apfel, 160 F.3d 1203, 1206 (8th Cir. 1998); 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act defines a "physical or mental impairment" as "an impairment that results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques." 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(3), ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.