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.

Ledford v. Colvin

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

December 5, 2016

TINA LEDFORD PLAINTIFF
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          HON. ERIN L. SETSER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff, Tina Ledford, 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 benefits (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. §405(g).

         I. Procedural Background:

         Plaintiff protectively filed her current applications for DIB and SSI on July 24, 2012, alleging an inability to work since December 31, 2010, due to diabetes, fibromyalgia, carpal tunnel syndrome, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), obesity, knee problems, collapsed right nasal passage, and high cholesterol. (Doc. 18, pp. 201-204, 215, 230). An administrative hearing was held on August 21, 2013, at which Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified. (Doc. 18, pp. 35-67).

         By written decision dated May 16, 2014, the ALJ found that during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had an impairment or combination of impairments that were severe- fibromyalgia, obesity, noninsulin dependent diabetes mellitus, recurrent sciatica/myofascial strain, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)/restrictive lung disease, high blood pressure, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, history of syncope and major depression not otherwise specified. (Doc. 18, p. 18). 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. 18, p. 18). The ALJ found Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to:

perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a) except that she can occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl and climb ramps and stairs. She cannot climb ladders, ropes and scaffolds and can only occasionally handle and finger bilaterally. The claimant must avoid concentrated exposure to temperature extremes, humidity, fumes, odors, dusts, gases and poor ventilation and must avoid moderate exposure to hazards, including no driving as a part of work. In addition, the claimant can do work that is simple and repetitive with incidental interpersonal contact and direct and concrete supervision.

(Doc. 18, pp. 20-21). With the help of the vocational expert (VE), the ALJ determined that during the relevant time period, Plaintiff would not be able to perform any past relevant work, but there were other jobs she would be able to perform, such as surveillance system monitor and call out operator. (Doc. 18, pp. 27-28).

         Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council, which denied that request on August 5, 2015. (Doc. 18, pp. 5-9). 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. 16, 17).

         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 (8thCir. 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 (8thCir. 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). 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 him 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. ...


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.