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.

Wimbley v. Social Security Administration

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division

September 21, 2018

KEVIN WIMBLEY PLAINTIFF
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION DEFENDANT

          RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

         The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to United States District Judge Susan Webber Wright. 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, Kevin Wimbley, applied for disability benefits on October 16, 2014, alleging a disability onset date of December 14, 2009. (Tr. at 61). He later amended his onset date to November 1, 2014. Id. The application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. Id. After conducting a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Mr. Wimbley's claim. (Tr. at 72). The Appeals Council denied his request for review. (Tr. at 1). The ALJ's decision now stands as the final decision of the Commissioner, and Mr. Wimbley 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 Mr. Wimbley had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date of November 1, 2014. (Tr. at 63). At Step Two of the sequential five-step analysis, the ALJ found that Mr. Wimbley had the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, bilateral sacroiliitis, and obesity. Id.

         The ALJ found that Mr. Wimbley's impairment did not meet or equal a listed impairment. (Tr. at 65). Before proceeding to Step Four, the ALJ determined that Mr. Wimbley had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform work at the sedentary level, with some limitations. Id. He could occasionally stoop, bend, kneel, crouch, crawl, and climb ramps and stairs. Id. He could only occasionally push and pull with his lower extremities. Id. He must have the option to change position between sitting and standing every 30 minutes. Id. He is limited to unskilled work. Id.

         The ALJ next found that Mr. Wimbley was unable to perform his past relevant work. (Tr. at 70). The ALJ relied on the testimony of a Vocational Expert ("VE") to find that, considering Mr. Wimbley's age, education, work experience and RFC, jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy that he could perform, such as document preparer and food and beverage order clerk. (Tr. at 72). Therefore, the ALJ found that Mr. Wimbley 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.