United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HON.
ERIN L. WIEDEMANN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff,
Joyce Johnson, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g), seeking judicial review of a decision of the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
(Commissioner) denying her claims for a period of disability
and disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental
security income (SSI) benefits under the provisions of Titles
II and XVI of the Social Security Act (Act). In this judicial
review, the Court must determine whether there is substantial
evidence in the administrative record to support the
Commissioner's decision. See 42 U.S.C. §
405(g).
I.
Procedural Background:
Plaintiff
protectively filed her current applications for DIB and SSI
on September 19, 2013, alleging an inability to work since
August 15, 2013, due to chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease, congestive heart failure, blood pressure and
depression. (Tr. 119, 245, 247). An administrative hearing
was held on June 7, 2016. (Tr. 104-118). After being informed
of the right to representation, Plaintiff chose to appear and
testify without the assistance of an attorney or other
representative. (Tr. 116-117).
By
written decision dated September 16, 2016, the ALJ found
Plaintiff engaged in substantial gainful activity through
November 4, 2014. (Tr. 19). The ALJ found that during the
relevant time period, Plaintiff had an impairment or
combination of impairments that were severe. (Tr. 20).
Specifically, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following
severe impairments: a disorder of the right knee; chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); hypertension; and
hypertensive cardiomyopathy, congestive heart failure,
compensated. However, after reviewing all of the evidence
presented, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff's
impairments did not meet or equal the level of severity of
any impairment listed in the Listing of Impairments found in
Appendix I, Subpart P, Regulation No. 4. (Tr. 22). The ALJ
found Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity
(RFC) to:
perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and
416.967(b) except as follows: The claimant must avoid even
moderate exposure to fumes, odors, dusts, gases, and poor
ventilation.
(Tr. 22). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ
determined Plaintiff could perform her past relevant work as
a cashier as actually and generally performed. (Tr. 26,
413-415).
Plaintiff
then requested a review of the hearing decision by the
Appeals Council, which denied that request on September 21,
2017. (Tr. 1-5). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this action.
(Doc. 1). This case is before the undersigned pursuant to the
consent of the parties. (Doc. 7). Both parties have filed
appeal briefs, and the case is now ready for decision. (Docs.
11, 12).
The
Court has reviewed the entire transcript. The complete set of
facts and arguments are presented in the parties' briefs,
and are repeated here only to the extent necessary.
II.
Applicable Law:
This
Court's role is to determine whether the
Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial
evidence on the record as a whole. Ramirez v.
Barnhart, 292 F.3d 576, 583 (8th Cir. 2002). Substantial
evidence is less than a preponderance but it is enough that a
reasonable mind would find it adequate to support the
Commissioner's decision. The ALJ's decision must be
affirmed if the record contains substantial evidence to
support it. Edwards v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 964, 966
(8th Cir. 2003). As long as there is substantial evidence in
the record that supports the Commissioner's decision, the
Court may not reverse it simply because substantial evidence
exists in the record that would have supported a contrary
outcome, or because the Court would have decided the case
differently. Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747
(8th Cir. 2001). In other words, if after reviewing the
record it is possible to draw two inconsistent positions from
the evidence and one of those positions represents the
findings of the ALJ, the decision of the ALJ must be
affirmed. Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065, 1068 (8th
Cir. 2000).
It is
well established that a claimant for Social Security
disability benefits has the burden of proving her disability
by establishing a physical or mental disability that has
lasted at least one year and that prevents her from engaging
in any substantial gainful activity. Pearsall v.
Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1217 (8th Cir. 2001); see
also 42 U.S.C. § § 423(d)(1)(A). The Act
defines “physical or mental impairment” as
“an impairment that results from anatomical,
physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are
demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory
diagnostic techniques.” 42 U.S.C. §§
423(d)(3). A Plaintiff must show that her disability, not
simply her impairment, has lasted for at least twelve
consecutive months.
The
Commissioner's regulations require her to apply a
five-step sequential evaluation process to each claim for
disability benefits: (1) whether the claimant has engaged in
substantial gainful activity since filing her claim; (2)
whether the claimant has a severe physical and/or mental
impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the
impairment(s) meet or equal an impairment in the listings;
(4) whether the impairment(s) prevent the claimant from doing
past relevant work; and (5) whether the claimant is able to
perform other work in the national economy given her age,
education, and experience. See 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1520, 416.920. Only if the final stage is
reached does the fact finder consider the Plaintiff's
age, education, and work experience in light of her residual
functional capacity. See McCoy v. Schweiker, 683
F.2d 1138, 1141-42 (8th Cir. 1982), abrogated on other
grounds by Higgins v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 504, 505 (8th Cir.
2000); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920.
III.
...