United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
HONORABLE ERIN L. SETSER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Kerri Ellen Hingle, 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) 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.
protectively filed her current applications for DIB and SSI
on July 27, 2012, alleging an inability to work since
February 15, 2012, due to bipolar disorder, depression,
fibromyalgia, neuropathy, bursitis, HPV pre cervical cancer,
inflammation of the colon, social anxiety disorder, and anger
problems. (Doc. 13, pgs. 180-188, 206, 220). An
administrative hearing was held on September 26, 2013, at
which Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified. (Doc.
13, pgs. 34-52).
written decision dated November 5, 2013, the ALJ found that
during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had an impairment
or combination of impairments that were severe - obesity,
fibromyalgia, post-traumatic stress disorder, and depressive
disorder with anxiety. (Doc. 13, p. 14). However, after
reviewing all of the evidence presented, 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 found in Appendix I, Subpart P, Regulation No. 4.
(Doc. 13, p. 15). The ALJ found Plaintiff retained the
residual functional capacity (RFC) to:
perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and
416.967(b) except the claimant is able to perform work that
is limited to simple, routine and repetitive tasks, involving
only simple, work-related decisions, with few, if any,
workplace changes and no more than incidental contact with
co-workers, supervisors and the general public.
(Doc. 13, p. 16). With the help of the vocational expert
(VE), the ALJ determined that during the relevant time
period, Plaintiff would not be able to perform her past
relevant work, but there were other jobs she would be able to
perform, such as machine tender and housekeeper. (Doc. 13, p.
then requested a review of the hearing decision by the
Appeals Council, which denied that request on March 26, 2015.
(Doc. 13, pgs. 5-10). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this
action. (Doc. 1). This case is before the undersigned
pursuant to the consent of the parties. (Doc. 6). Both
parties have filed appeal briefs, and the case is now ready
for decision. (Docs. 11, 12).
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.
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).
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). 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.
Commissioner’s regulations require her to apply a
five-step sequential evaluation process to each claim for
disability benefits: (1) whether the claimant had engaged in
substantial gainful activity since filing her claim; (2)
whether the claimant had a severe physical and/or mental
impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the
impairment(s) met or equaled an impairment in the listings;
(4) whether the impairment(s) prevented the claimant from
doing past relevant work; and (5) whether the claimant was
able to perform other work in the national economy given her
age, education, and experience. See 20 C.F.R.
§§404.1520, 416.920. Only if the final stage is
reached does the fact finder consider the Plaintiff’s
age, education, and work experience in light of her RFC.
See McCoy v. Schneider, 683 F.2d 1138, 1141-42
(8th Cir. 1982); 20 C.F.R. §§404.1520,
416.920, abrogated on other grounds by Higgins v.
Apfel, 222 F.3d 504, 505 (8th Cir. 2000); 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1520, 416.920.