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.

Vick v. Colvin

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division

September 23, 2016

COURTNEY VICK, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant.

          Courtney Vick, Plaintiff, represented by James Gerard Schulze, Baker Schulze Murphy & Patterson.

          Social Security Administration, Defendant, represented by Stacey Elise McCord, U.S. Attorney's Office & Una McGeehan, Social Security Administration.

          RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

          J. THOMAS RAY, Magistrate Judge.

         The following Recommended Disposition ("Recommendation") has been sent to United States District Judge James M. Moody Jr. You may file written objections to all or part of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of fact.

         I. Introduction:

         Plaintiff, Courtney Vick, applied for disability benefits on October 12, 2012, alleging a disability onset date of Ferbruary 16, 2012. (Tr. at 16). After conducting a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") denied her application. (Tr. at 27). The Appeals Council denied Vick's request for review. (Tr. at 1). The ALJ's decision now stands as the final decision of the Commissioner, and Vick has requested judicial review.

         The ALJ found that Vick had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the amended alleged onset date of October 10, 2012. (Tr. at 18). The ALJ found at Step Two that Vick had the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease and irritable bowel syndrome. Id. At Step Three, the ALJ determined that Vick's impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment. (Tr. at 21). Before proceeding to Step Four, the ALJ determined that Vick had the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform light work except for the following limitations: 1) lifting and carrying 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; 2) standing and walking up to 4 hours in an 8-hour workday; 3) sitting up to 4 hours in an 8-hour workday; 4) occasionally climbing stairs, balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling, but never climbing ladders; 5) frequently reaching, handling, fingering, and feeling, bilaterally; and 6) using corrective lenses when necessary. Id. Next, the ALJ found that Vick is capable of performing past relevant work as a medical records clerk, pre-school teacher, and phlebotomist. (Tr. at 25). The ALJ made an alternative finding at Step Five. Evaluating testimony from the Vocational Expert, she held that based on Vick's age, education, work experience, and RFC, jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy that she could perform. (Tr. at 26). Consequently, the ALJ found that Vick was not disabled. (Tr. at 27).

         II. Discussion:

         A. Standard of Review

         The Court's function on review is to determine whether the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and whether it is based on legal error. Miller v. Colvin, 784 F.3d 472, 477 (8th Cir. 2015); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). While "substantial evidence" is that which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, "substantial evidence on the record as a whole" requires a court to engage in a more scrutinizing analysis:

"[O]ur review is more than an examination of the record for the existence of substantial evidence in support of the Commissioner's decision; we also take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from that decision." Reversal is not warranted, however, "merely because substantial evidence would have supported an opposite decision."

Reed v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 917, 920 (8th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).

         It is not the task of this Court to review the evidence and make an independent decision. Neither is it to reverse the decision of the ALJ because there is evidence in the record which contradicts his findings. The test is whether there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole which supports the decision of the ALJ. Miller, 784 F.3d at 477. The Court has ...


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.