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.

McShane v. Berryhill

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

February 1, 2017

NANCY PARRY MCSHANE PLAINTIFF
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration[1] DEFENDANT

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          ERIN L. SETSER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff, Nancy Parry McShane, 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 application for DIB on November 7, 2011. (ECF No. 13, p. 15). In her application, Plaintiff alleges disability due to bipolar disorder, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), anxiety, fibromyalgia, migraine headaches, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”), degenerative disc disease of the cervical and lumbar spine, and chondromalacia. (ECF No. 13, p. 199). Plaintiff alleges an onset date of October 31, 2002. (ECF No. 13, p. 15, 195). This application was denied initially and again upon reconsideration. (ECF No. 13, pp. 64-65).

         Thereafter, Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on her denied applications, and this hearing request was granted. (ECF No. 13, p. 131, 145). Plaintiff's administrative hearing was held on October 31, 2013, in Fort Smith, Arkansas (ECF No. 13, pp. 37-63). Plaintiff appeared and was represented by John Baker. Id. Plaintiff and Vocational Expert (“VE”) Patty Kent testified at this hearing. Id. At the time of this hearing, Plaintiff was fifty-two (52) years old, which is defined as a “person closely approaching advanced age” under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1563(d). (ECF No. 13, p. 43). As for her level of education, Plaintiff graduated from college with a Bachelor's degree in journalism. (ECF No. 13, p. 43).

         After this hearing, on February 28, 2014, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff's application for DIB. (ECF No. 13, pp. 12-29). In this decision, the ALJ found Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Act through December 31, 2007. (ECF No. 13, p. 17, Finding 1). The ALJ found Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity (“SGA”) since October 31, 2002, her alleged onset date. (ECF No. 13, p. 17, Finding 2). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease, migraine headaches, chronic pain syndrome, osteoarthritis of the right shoulder, and bipolar disorder. (ECF No. 13, pp. 17-18, Finding 3). Despite being severe, the ALJ determined these impairments did not meet or medically equal the requirements of any of the Listings of Impairments in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Part 404 (“Listings”). (ECF No. 13, pp. 18-20, Finding 4).

         The ALJ then considered Plaintiff's Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”). (ECF No. 13, pp. 20-27, Finding 5). First, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints and found her claimed limitations were not entirely credible. Id. Second, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the RFC to perform “light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. 404.1567(b) except is limited to jobs involving simple tasks and simple instructions, and should have only incidental contact with the public.” (ECF No. 13, p. 20).

         The ALJ then determined Plaintiff was unable to perform her Past Relevant Work (“PRW”). (ECF No. 13, p. 27, Finding 6). The VE testified at the administrative hearing regarding this issue. (ECF No. 13, pp. 57-63). Based on Plaintiff's age, education, work experience, and RFC, the ALJ determined there were jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy Plaintiff could perform, such as assembler of small products, a housekeeper, and, within the larger category of general office clerks, a sedentary unskilled office clerk. (ECF No. 13, pp. 27-28, Finding 10). Because jobs exist in significant numbers in the national economy which Plaintiff can perform, the ALJ also determined Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined by the Act, from October 31, 2002, through December 31, 2007, the date Plaintiff last met the insured requirements of the Act. (ECF No. 13, p. 28, Finding 11).

         Thereafter, Plaintiff requested a review by the Appeals Council (ECF. No. 13, p. 11). The Appeals Council denied this request on April 9, 2015. (ECF No. 13, pp. 6-9). On June 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed the present appeal with this Court. (ECF No. 1). The Parties consented to the jurisdiction of this Court on January 25, 2016. (ECF No. 8). This case is now ready for decision.

         II. Applicable Law:

         This Court's role is to determine whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's findings. Vossen v. Astrue, 612 F.3d 1011, 1015 (8th Cir. 2010). 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. Teague v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 611, 614 (8th Cir. 2011). We must affirm the ALJ's decision if the record contains substantial evidence to support it. Blackburn v. Colvin, 761 F.3d 853, 858 (8th Cir. 2014). 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. Miller v. Colvin, 784 F.3d 472, 477 (8th Cir. 2015). 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, we must affirm the ALJ's decision. Id.

         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. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A).

         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 his age, education, and experience. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4). Only if she reaches the final stage does the fact finder consider Plaintiff's age, education, and work experience in light of his 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. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v).

         III. ...


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.