United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
TENNIE R. WILSON PLAINTIFF
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner Social Security Administration DEFENDANT
Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has
been sent to Judge Billy Roy Wilson. You may file written
objections to this Recommendation. If you file objections,
they must be specific and must include the factual or legal
basis for your objection.
objections must be received in the office of the Court Clerk
within 14 days of this Recommendation. If no objections are
filed, Judge Wilson can adopt this Recommendation without
independently reviewing the record. By not objecting, you may
also waive any right to appeal questions of fact.
April 16, 2013, Tennie R. Wilson applied for disability
benefits, alleging disability beginning April 16, 2014. (Tr.
at 17) Ms. Wilson's claims were denied initially and upon
reconsideration. Id. After conducting a hearing, the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied her
application. (Tr. at 26) The Appeals Council denied her
request for review. (Tr. at 1) The ALJ's decision,
therefore, now stands as the final decision of the
Commissioner, and Ms. Wilson has requested judicial review.
The Commissioner's Decision:
found that Ms. Wilson had not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since the application date of April 16, 2014. (Tr.
at 19) At Step Two of the five-step analysis, the ALJ found
that Ms. Wilson had the following severe impairments: chronic
heart failure, cerebral vascular incident, late effects of
cerebrovascular disease, and obesity. (Tr. at 19)
finding that Ms. Wilson's impairments did not meet or
equal a listed impairment (Tr. at 19), the ALJ determined
that Ms. Wilson had the residual functional capacity
(“RFC”) to perform the full range of light work
with no additional limitations. (Tr. at 20)
next found that Ms. Wilson was unable to perform any past
relevant work. (Tr. at 24) After considering Ms. Wilson's
age, education, work experience and RFC, and
Medical-Vocational Rule 202.21, however, the ALJ found at
Step Five that Ms. Wilson was capable of performing work in
the national economy. (Tr. at 25) Based on this finding, the
ALJ held that Ms. Wilson was not disabled. Id.
Standard of Review
Court's role is to determine whether the
Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial
evidence. Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010, 1012 (8th
Cir. 2000). "Substantial evidence" in this context
means “enough that a reasonable mind would find it
adequate to support he ALJ's decision.” Id.
Slusser v. Astrue, 557 F.3d 923, 925 (8th Cir.
2009)(citation omitted). In reviewing the Commissioner's
decision, the Court must consider not only evidence that
supports the decision, but also, evidence that supports a
contrary outcome. The Court cannot reverse the decision,
however, “merely because substantial evidence exists
for the opposite decision.” Long v. Chater,
108 F.3d 185, 187 (8th Cir. 1997) (quoting Johnson v.
Chater, 87 F.3d 1015, 1017 (8th Cir. 1996)).
Wilson's Arguments on Appeal
Wilson contends that substantial evidence does not support
the ALJ's decision to deny benefits. Her sole argument is
that the ALJ erred in finding that she had sufficiently
recovered from her stroke to be able to perform light work.
After reviewing the record as a whole, the Court concludes
that the ALJ did not err in denying benefits.
claimant's RFC represents the most she can do despite the
combined effects of all of his credible limitations, and an
RFC determination must take into account all credible
evidence. McCoy v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 605, 614 (8th
Cir. 2011). In determining a claimant's RFC, the ALJ has
a duty to establish, by competent medical evidence, the
physical and mental activity that the claimant can perform in
a work setting, after giving appropriate consideration to all
of her impairments. Ostronski v. Chater, 94 F.3d
413, 418 (8th ...