United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, El Dorado Division
ERIN L. SETSER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Sharon Henderson, 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 supplemental security
income (SSI) benefits under the provisions of Title 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).
protectively filed her current application for SSI on June
11, 2012, alleging an inability to work due to depression,
bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and anxiety. (Doc. 25, pp.
96, 203). An administrative hearing was held on August 14,
2013, at which Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified.
(Doc. 25, pp. 55-94). Plaintiff’s pastor and a
vocational expert also testified at the hearing.
written decision dated January 21, 2014, the ALJ found that
during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had an impairment
or combination of impairments that were severe. (Doc. 25, p.
40). Specifically, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following
severe impairments: a history of schizophrenia and psychosis,
due to drug abuse, allegedly in remission; a depressive
disorder; bipolar disorder; an anxiety disorder; cannabis
abuse; and cocaine abuse. 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. 25, p. 42).
The ALJ found Plaintiff retained the residual functional
capacity (RFC) to:
Perform a full range of work at all exertional level but with
the following nonexertional limitations: the claimant can
perform no greater than unskilled work. She is able to
understand, retain, and carryout simple instructions, make
simple work related decisions, and perform work where the
complexity of a task is learned by rote with few variables
and little judgment. The claimant can perform work where
interpersonal contact is incidental to the work performed.
The claimant can perform work where there are few changes if
any in the workplace. The claimant can perform work where
supervision is simple, direct, and concrete. However, the
claimant works better with things rather than people.
(Doc. 25, p. 43). With the help of a vocational expert, the
ALJ determined Plaintiff could perform work as a conveyor
feeder-off bearer. (Doc. 25, p. 49).
then requested a review of the hearing decision by the
Appeals Council, which denied that request on April 8, 2015.
(Doc. 25, p. 29). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this action.
(Doc. 1). This case is before the undersigned pursuant to the
consent of the parties. (Doc. 8). Both parties have filed
appeal briefs, and the case is now ready for decision. (Docs.
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
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
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. §
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 residual functional capacity.
See McCoy v. Schweiker, 683 F.2d 1138, 1141-42 (8th
Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds by Higgins v.
Apfel, 222 F.3d 504, 505 (8th Cir. 2000); 20 C.F.R.