United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
HON. ERIN L. SETSER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff, Tara Dawn Fincher, 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 claims for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits (DIB) under the provisions of Title 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 her current application for DIB on February 21, 2012, alleging an inability to work since January 23, 2007, due to adult ADD, sacroiliac dysfunction, a herniated disc, sciatica, a fractured vertebrae, arthritis, bone spurs, Crohn’s disease, anxiety, and depression. (Tr. 153). For DIB purposes, Plaintiff maintained insured status through September 30, 2011. (Tr. 9, 185, 191). An administrative hearing was held on July 30, 2012, at which Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified. (Tr. 26-55).
By written decision dated November 7, 2013, the ALJ found that through her date last insured, Plaintiff had an impairment or combination of impairments that were severe. (Tr. 11). Specifically, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments prior to the expiration of her insured status: degenerative disc/joint disease, Crohn’s disease and/or colitis/ileitis, anxiety, and depression. (Tr. 11). However, after reviewing all of the evidence presented, the ALJ determined that prior to the expiration of her insured status, 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. 12). The ALJ found that prior to the expiration of her insured status, Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to:
perform sedentary and light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a)(b) except due to intestinal issues, she would need to work indoors. Further, she could not climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds, and she could only occasionally climb stairs and ramps, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl. She was limited to unskilled repetitive, predictable jobs where the work plan is managed and supervised by someone else. She could not work directly with the public, although it would not be necessary that she be away from the public, and she could work in the immediate vicinity of less than a dozen fellow employees. The staff of employees would be fairly predictable with predictable responsibilities.
(Tr. 13). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ determined that prior to the expiration of her insured status, Plaintiff could perform work as a mailroom sorter, an office helper, a fishing float assembler, a compact assembler, an addressing clerk, and a document preparer. (Tr. 19-20).
Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council, which denied that request on February 13, 2015. (Tr. 1-4). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this action. (Doc. 1). This case is before the undersigned pursuant to the consent of the parties. (Doc. 5). Both parties have filed appeal briefs, and the case is now ready for decision. (Docs. 7, 10).
The Court has reviewed the entire transcript. The complete set of facts and arguments are presented in the parties’ briefs, and are repeated here only to the extent necessary.
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 her disability by establishing a physical or mental disability that has lasted at least one year and that prevents her 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). A Plaintiff must show that her disability, not simply her 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 her 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 her age, education, and experience. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Only if the final stage is reached does the fact finder consider the Plaintiff’s age, education, and work experience in light of her ...