United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Jonathon Beaird (“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 Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”), Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”), and a period of disability under Titles II and XVI 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. 5.Pursuant to this authority, the Court issues this memorandum opinion and orders the entry of a final judgment in this matter.
Plaintiff protectively filed an application for DIB and SSI on September 10, 2012. (Tr. 13, 181-188). Plaintiff alleged he was disabled due to scoliosis and both hips being replaced. (Tr. 248). Plaintiff alleged an onset date of August 24, 2012. (Tr. 13). These applications were denied initially and again upon reconsideration. (Tr. 13, 114-120, 122-126). Thereafter, Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on his applications and this hearing request was granted. (Tr. 127).
Plaintiff’s administrative hearing was held on September 19, 2013. (Tr. 45-65). Plaintiff was present and was represented by non-attorney representative, Stanley Brummal, at this hearing. Id. Plaintiff, Vocational Expert (“VE”) Talesia Beasley, and Medical Expert (ME”) Dr. Alvin Smith testified at this hearing. Id. At the time of this hearing, Plaintiff was forty-five (45) years old and had a GED. (Tr. 47).
On December 27, 2013, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff’s application for DIB and SSI. (Tr. 13-27). In this decision, the ALJ determined Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Act through December 31, 2015. (Tr. 14, Finding 1). The ALJ also determined Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity (“SGA”) since August 24, 2012. (Tr. 14, Finding 2).
The ALJ determined Plaintiff had the severe impairment of osteoarthritis. (Tr. 14, Finding 3). The ALJ then determined Plaintiff’s impairments did not meet or medically equal the requirements of any of the Listing of Impairments in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Regulations No. 4 (“Listings”). (Tr. 18, Finding 4).
In this decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and determined his RFC. (Tr. 19-25). First, the ALJ indicated he 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 sedentary work, but was limited to occasional balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling. (Tr. 19, Finding 5).
The ALJ then evaluated Plaintiff’s Past Relevant Work (“PRW”). (Tr. 26, Finding 6). The ALJ found Plaintiff unable to perform his PRW. Id. The ALJ however determined there was other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy Plaintiff could perform. (Tr. 91, Finding 10). The VE testified at the administrative hearing regarding this issue. (Tr. 27). Based upon that testimony, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the ability to perform other work such as a call out operator with 4, 496 such jobs in the region and 35, 055 such jobs in the nation, electronic dial maker with 3, 647 such jobs in the region and 35, 171 such jobs in the nation, and system surveillance monitor with 2, 091 such jobs in the region and 25, 119 such jobs in the nation. (Tr. 26-27). Given this, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not been under a disability as defined in the Act from August 24, 2012 through the date of his decision. (Tr. 27, Finding 11).
Thereafter, Plaintiff requested the Appeals Council review the ALJ’s unfavorable decision. (Tr. 8). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.968. The Appeals Council declined to review this unfavorable decision. (Tr. 1-3). On May 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed the present appeal. ECF No. 1. The Parties consented to the jurisdiction of this Court on May 13, 2015. ECF No. 5. Both Parties have filed appeal briefs. ECF Nos. 10, 11. 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), 1382(3)(c). A plaintiff must show that his or her disability, not simply his or her impairment, has lasted for at least twelve consecutive months. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A).
To determine whether the adult claimant suffers from a disability, the Commissioner uses the familiar five-step sequential evaluation. He determines: (1) whether the claimant is presently engaged in a “substantial gainful activity”; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment that significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities; (3) whether the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals a presumptively disabling impairment listed in the regulations (if so, the claimant is disabled without regard to age, education, and work experience); (4) whether the claimant has the Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) to perform his or her past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant cannot perform the past work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove that there are other jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform. See Cox, 160 F.3d at 1206; 20 C.F.R. ...