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.

Farris v. Colvin

United States District Court, Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville Division

March 2, 2015

MELVIN L. FARRIS PLAINTIFF
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

HON. ERIN L. SETSER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, Melvin L. Farris, 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 his claims for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits (DIB) under the provisions of Titles II 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 his application for DIB on April 24, 2007, alleging an inability to work since February 1, 2007, due to neck and shoulder problems. (Tr. 88). For DIB purposes, Plaintiff maintained insured status through March 30, 2013. (Tr. 360, 540). An administrative hearing was held on February 3, 2009, at which Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified. (Tr. 17-42).

In a written decision dated June 1, 2009, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform light work with limitations. (Tr. 48-54). The Appeals Council declined review of the ALJ’s decision on February 16, 2010. (Tr. 1, 432).

Plaintiff appealed the ALJ’s June 1, 2009, decision to this Court. In a decision dated June 21, 2011, this Court remanded the case back to the Commissioner to further develop the record, and to re-evaluate Plaintiff’s impairments. (Tr. 451-457). The Appeals Council vacated the ALJ's decision, and remanded Plaintiff's case back to the ALJ on February 6, 2012. (Tr. 459-462). Plaintiff’s subsequent applications were combined with the Court remand application. A supplemental administrative video hearing was held on July 9, 2012. (Tr. 376-409). Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified.

By written decision dated May 2, 2013, the ALJ found that during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had an impairment or combination of impairments that were severe. (Tr. 362). Specifically, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: a musculoskeletal disorder (back disorder, cervical degenerative disc disease post fusion surgery); and a vision disorder (visual disturbance secondary to scarring from injury). However, after reviewing all of the evidence presented, the ALJ determined that through the date last insured Plaintiff’s impairments did not meet or equal the level of severity of any impairment listed in the Listing of Impairments found in Appendix I, Subpart P, Regulation No. 4. (Tr. 363). The ALJ found that through the date last insured Plaintiff retained the RFC to:

perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) except as follows: The claimant is able to frequently lift and/or carry ten pounds and occasionally twenty pounds, sit for a total of about six hours in an eight hour workday, and stand and/or walk for a total of about six hours in an eight hour workday. The claimant cannot perform work that requires binocular vision. He cannot perform overhead work.

(Tr. 363). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ determined that through the date last insured, Plaintiff could perform work as a toy assembly worker, a warehouse inspector/checker, and a bottle line production worker. (Tr. 368).

Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council which issued an unfavorable opinion, that included the time period for Plaintiff’s subsequent SSI application, on January 14, 2014. (Tr. 347-355). Plaintiff now seeks judicial review of that decision. (Doc. 1). Both parties filed appeal briefs, and this case is before the undersigned pursuant to the consent of the parties. (Doc. 7; Doc. 11; Doc. 13).

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. 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).

It is well-established that a claimant for Social Security disability benefits has the burden of proving his disability by establishing a physical or mental disability that has lasted at least one year and that prevents him from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1217 (8th Cir.2001); see also 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 demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 42 U.S.C. § § 423(d)(3), 1382(3)(c). A Plaintiff must show that his disability, not simply his impairment, has lasted for at least twelve consecutive months.

The Commissioner’s regulations require her to apply a five-step sequential evaluation process to each claim for disability benefits: (1) whether the claimant has engaged in substantial gainful activity since filing his claim; (2) whether the claimant has a severe physical and/or mental impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment(s) meet or equal an impairment in the listings; (4) whether the impairment(s) prevent the claimant from doing past relevant work; and, (5) whether the claimant is able to perform other work in the national economy given his age, education, and experience. See 20 C.F.R. ยงยง 404.1520, 416.920. Only if the final stage is reached does the fact finder consider the ...


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.