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.

Kemper v. Berryhill

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

May 15, 2018

TRACY KEMPER PLAINTIFF
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Deputy Commissioner for Operations, performing the duties and functions not reserved to the Commissioner of Social Security DEFENDANT

          ORDER

         I. Introduction:

         Plaintiff, Tracy Kemper, applied for disability benefits on April 29, 2015, alleging a disability onset date of November 26, 2014. (Tr. at 12). After conducting a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") denied his application. (Tr. at 21). The Appeals Council denied his request for review. (Tr. at 1). Thus, the ALJ's decision now stands as the final decision of the Commissioner.

         For the reasons stated below, the Court[1]affirms the decision of the Commissioner.

         II. The Commissioner's Decision:

         The ALJ found that Kemper had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the amended onset date of March 1, 2016. (Tr. at 14). At Step Two, the ALJ found that Kemper has the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease, status-post carpal tunnel release, generalized anxiety disorder, mood disorder, and obsessive compulsive disorder. Id.

         After finding that Kemper's impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment (Tr. at 15), the ALJ determined that Kemper had the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform sedentary work, except that: (1) he could only frequently perform handling and fingering duties; and (2) he is limited to unskilled work consisting of simple, routine, and repetitive tasks, where the supervision required is simple, direct, and concrete. (Tr. at 16).

         The ALJ found that, based on Kemper's RFC, he was unable to perform any past relevant work. (Tr. at 20). However, relying upon the testimony of a Vocational Expert ("VE"), the ALJ found that, based on Kemper's age, education, work experience and RFC, jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy that he could perform, including positions as call out operator and small group office clerk. (Tr. at 21). Thus, the ALJ held that Kemper was not disabled. Id.

         III. 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 ...


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.