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.

Rife v. Berryhill

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

April 7, 2017

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

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          HON. ERIN L. WIEDEMANN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff, Karen Rife, 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 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).

         I. Procedural Background:

         Plaintiff protectively filed her application for SSI on November 14, 2013. (ECF No. II, p. 22). In her application, Plaintiff alleges disability due to depression, diverticular disease, irritable bowel syndrome (“IBS”), anxiety, and chronic pain. (ECF No. 11, p. 308). Plaintiff alleges an onset date of November 14, 2011. (ECF No. 11, pp. 22, 176). These applications were denied initially and again upon reconsideration. (ECF No. 11, pp. 83-105).

         Thereafter, Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on her denied application, and this hearing request was granted. (ECF No. 11, p. 120). Plaintiff's administrative hearing was held on December 4, 2014, in Fort Smith, Arkansas (ECF No. 11, pp. 36-82). Plaintiff was present and was represented by Ann Donovan. Id. Plaintiff, Plaintiff's cousin Merrin Dalifut, and Vocational Expert (“VE”) John Massy testified at this hearing. Id. At the time of this hearing, Plaintiff was forty-eight (48) years old, which is defined as a “younger person” under 20 C.F.R. § 416.963(c). (ECF No. 11, p. 39). As for her level of education, Plaintiff has a high school diploma. Id. at 181.

         After this hearing, on February 24, 2015, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff's application for SSI. (ECF No. 11, pp. 19-30). In this decision, the ALJ found Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity (“SGA”) since November 14, 2013, her application date. (ECF No. 11, p. 24, Finding 1). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease, gastro-intestinal disorder, and peripheral neuropathy. (ECF No. 11, pp. 24-25, Finding 2). 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. 11, p. 25, Finding 3).

         The ALJ then considered Plaintiff's Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”). (ECF No. 11, pp. 25-28, Finding 4). 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:

sedentary work as defined in 20 C.F.R. 416.967(a) except occasional climb, balance, crawl, kneel, stoop, and crouch and requires a cane to ambulate.

Id.

         The ALJ then determined Plaintiff had no Past Relevant Work (“PRW”). (ECF No. 11, p. 28, Finding 5). The VE testified at the administrative hearing regarding this issue. (ECF No. 11, pp. 76-81). 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 a document preparer, a cutter paster, and an eye glass frame polisher. (ECF No. 11, pp. 28-29, Finding 9). 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 November 14, 2013, through February 24, 2015, the date of the ALJ's decision. (ECF No. 11, p. 29, Finding 10).

         Thereafter, on April 15, 2015, Plaintiff requested a review by the Appeals Council (ECF. No. 11, p. 17). The Appeals Council denied this request on March 18, 2016. (ECF No. 11, pp. 5-9). On May 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed the present appeal with this Court. (ECF No. 1). The parties consented to the jurisdiction of this Court on June 10, 2016. (ECF No. 7). 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. § 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 ...


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.