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.

Farmer v. Social Security Administration

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

August 8, 2018

KRISTA L. FARMER PLAINTIFF
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION DEFENDANT

          RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

         The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to Chief United States District Judge Brian S. Miller. 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.

         I. Introduction:

         Plaintiff, Krista L. Farmer, applied for disability benefits on July 28, 2011, alleging a disability onset date of October 1, 2007. (Tr. at 14). The application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. Id. After conducting a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Ms. Farmer's claim. (Tr. at 27). The Appeals Council denied her request for review. (Tr. at 1). The ALJ's decision now stands as the final decision of the Commissioner, and Ms. Farmer has requested judicial review.

         For the reasons stated below, the Court should affirm the decision of the Commissioner.

         II. The Commissioner=s Decision:

         The ALJ found that Ms. Farmer had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the application date of July 28, 2011. (Tr. at 16). At Step Two of the sequential five-step analysis, the ALJ found that Ms. Farmer had the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis, obesity, sleep apnea, anxiety, and an affective disorder. Id.

         The ALJ found that Ms. Farmer's impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment. (Tr. at 17). Before proceeding to Step Four, the ALJ determined that Ms. Farmer had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform work at the sedentary level, with some limitations. She could only occasionally stoop and could never crouch, crawl, or kneel. (Tr. at 20). She could perform work where the interpersonal contact is incidental to the work performed, where incidental is defined as requiring a limited degree of interaction such as meeting and greeting the public, answering simple questions, accepting payment, and making change. Id. The complexity of tasks must be learned by demonstration or repetition within 30 days, with few variables and little judgment, and the supervision required is simple, direct, and concrete. Id.

         The ALJ next found that Ms. Farmer was unable to perform any past relevant work. (Tr. at 25). The ALJ relied on the testimony of a Vocational Expert ("VE") to find that, considering Ms. Farmer's age, education, work experience and RFC, jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy that she could perform, such as document preparer and lampshade assembler. (Tr. at 26). Therefore, the ALJ found that Ms. Farmer 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 record as a whole which supports the decision of the ALJ. Miller, 784 F.3d at 477. The Court has ...


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.