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.

Jones v. Colvin

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Harrison Division

January 16, 2015

MELISSA D. JONES, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner Social Security Administration, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MARK FORD, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff, Melissa Jones, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner") denying her claim for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits ("DIB"), and supplemental security income ("SSI") under the provisions of Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act ("Act"). In this judicial review, the Court must determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the Commissioner's decision. See 42 U.S.C. §405(g).

I. Procedural Background

Plaintiff protectively filed her application for DIB and SSI on May 26, 2011, alleging an inability to work since November 4, 2010, due to fibromyalgia, anxiety, depression, and "pain all over." (Tr. 11, 41, 167, 182). For DIB purposes, Plaintiff's date last insured is September 30, 2014. (Tr. 13, 163). Plaintiff's claim was denied initially and on reconsideration. An administrative hearing was held on April 27, 2012, at which Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified. (Tr. 30-75).

At the time of the administrative hearing, Plaintiff was forty-two years of age and possessed a high school education. (Tr. 22). Plaintiff had past relevant work ("PRW") experience as a hotel clerk, appointment clerk/front desk receptionist, billing clerk, casino booth cashier, and general office clerk. (Tr. 22, 66-67).

By a written decision dated August 8, 2012, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") determined Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: hypertension, obesity, and depression. (Tr. 13). After reviewing all of the evidence presented, however, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff's impairments did not meet or equal the level of severity of any impairment listed in the Listing of Impairments. (Tr. 16-17). The ALJ found Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity ("RFC") "to perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a) except that she would need to have the option to stand 25 percent of the time and can only do jobs with simple tasks and simple instructions." (T. 17). With the help of a vocational expert ("VE"), the ALJ determined Plaintiff could not perform her PRW, but could perform the requirements of representative occupations such as charge account clerk, address clerk, and inspector/checker/sorter. (Tr. 22-24). The ALJ then found that Plaintiff had not been under a disability during the relevant time period. (Tr. 24).

Plaintiff requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council on August 17, 2012, which denied that request on August 9, 2013. (Tr. 1-5). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this action. (Doc. 1). This case is before the undersigned pursuant to the consent of the parties. (Doc. 7). Both parties have filed appeals briefs, and the case is ready for decision. (Doc. 11, 12).

II. Applicable Law.

This Court's role is to determine whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Ramirez v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 576, 583 (8th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance, but it is enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support the Commissioner's decision. "Our review extends beyond examining the record to find substantial evidence in support of the ALJ's decision; we also consider evidence in the record that fairly detracts from that decision." Cox v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 614, 617 (8th Cir. 2007). The ALJ's decision must be affirmed if the record contains substantial evidence to support it. Edwards v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 964, 966 (8th Cir. 2003). 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. Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2001). In other words, 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. Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065, 1068 (8th Cir. 2000).

A claimant for Social Security disability benefits has the burden of proving her disability by establishing a physical or mental disability that has lasted at least one year and that prevents him from engaging in substantial gainful activity. Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1217 (8th Cir. 2001); 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act defines "physical or mental impairment" as "an impairment that results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrated by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques." 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(3), 1382(3)(c). A Plaintiff must show that her disability, not simply her impairment, has lasted for at least twelve consecutive months. Titus v. Sullivan, 4 F.3d 590, 594 (8th Cir. 1993).

The Commissioner's regulations require the application of a five-step sequential evaluation process to each claim for disability benefits. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)-(f)(2003). Only if the final stage is reached does the fact finder consider the Plaintiff's age, education, and work experience in light of his or her RFC. See McCoy v. Schweiker, 683 F.2d 1138, 1141-42 (8th Cir. 1982); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (2003).

III. Discussion

Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred (1) by not finding her pain was a severe impairment, and (2) by improperly weighting two physician opinions in ...


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.