United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division
following Recommended Disposition
(“Recommendation”) has been sent to United States
District Judge James M. Moody, Jr. You may file written
objections to all or part of this Recommendation. If you do
so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the
factual and/or legal basis for your objections; and (2) be
received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days
of this Recommendation. By not objecting, you may waive the
right to appeal questions of fact.
Kristi Lane Richardson, applied for disability benefits on
May 11, 2015, alleging a disability onset date of August 26,
2014. (Tr. at 15). After conducting a hearing, the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied her
application. (Tr. at 23). The Appeals Council denied her
request for review. (Tr. at 1). The ALJ's decision now
stands as the final decision of the Commissioner. Richardson
has requested judicial review.
reasons stated below, this Court should reverse the ALJ's
decision and remand for further review.
The Commissioner's Decision:
found that Richardson had not engaged in substantial gainful
activity during the period from her alleged onset date of
August 26, 2014 through her date last insured of December 31,
2015. (Tr. at 17). At Step Two, the ALJ found
that Richardson has the following severe impairments:
comminuted fracture of the left arm and shoulder and status
post fracture of the right shoulder. Id.
finding that Richardson's impairments did not meet or
equal a listed impairment (Tr. at 18), the ALJ determined
that Richardson had the residual functional capacity
(“RFC”) to perform the full range of sedentary
work. (Tr. at 19).
found that Richardson was unable to perform any past relevant
work. (Tr. at 21). Relying upon the testimony of the
Vocational Expert (“VE”) at Step Five, the ALJ
found that, based on Richardson's age, education, work
experience and RFC, jobs existed in significant numbers in
the national economy that she could perform, such as call out
operator, surveillance system monitor, and bonder
semi-conductor. (Tr. at 22). Consequently, the ALJ found that
Richardson was not disabled. Id.
Standard of Review
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
“[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)
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 ...