United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division
LISA A. TANKERSLEY PLAINTIFF
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION DEFENDANT
Procedures for filing Objections:
Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has
been sent to Chief District Judge Brian S. Miller. You may
file written objections to this Recommendation. If you file
objections, they must be specific and must include the
factual or legal basis for your objection.
objections must be received in the office of the United
States District Court Clerk within fourteen (14) days of this
objections are filed, Chief Judge Miller can adopt this
Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. By
not objecting, you may also waive any right to appeal
questions of fact.
Lisa A. Tankersley, applied for disability benefits on June
3, 2013, alleging a disability onset date of January 1, 2010
(Tr. at 12). After conducting a hearing, the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied her
application. (Tr. at 20). 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
Tankersley has requested judicial review.
reasons stated below, this Court should affirm the decision
of the Commissioner.
The Commissioner's Decision:
found that Tankersley had not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since the alleged onset date of January 10, 2013.
(Tr. at 15). The ALJ found, at Step Two of the sequential
five-step analysis, that Tankersley had the following severe
impairments: osteoarthritis, diabetes mellitus, and morbid
Three, the ALJ determined that Tankersley's impairments
did not meet or equal a listed impairment. (Tr. at 16).
Before proceeding to Step Four, the ALJ determined that
Tankersley had the residual functional capacity
(“RFC”) to perform the full range of light work.
(Tr. at 17).
Four, the ALJ found that Tankersley was unable to perform any
past relevant work. (Tr. at 19). However, considering
Tankersley's RFC, age, education, and work experience,
the ALJ concluded that the Medical Vocational Guidelines
required a finding of “not disabled” at Rule
202.17. (Tr. at 20). Consequently, the ALJ held that
Tankersley was not disabled. Id.
Standard of Review
Court's role is to determine whether the
Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial
evidence. Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010, 1012 (8th
Cir. 2000). “Substantial evidence” in this
context means less than a preponderance but more than a
scintilla. Slusser v. Astrue, 557 F.3d 923, 925 (8th
Cir. 2009). In other words, it is “enough that a
reasonable mind would find it adequate to support the
ALJ's decision.” Id. (citation omitted).
The Court must consider not only evidence that supports the
Commissioner's decision, but also evidence that supports
a contrary outcome. The Court cannot reverse the decision,
however, “merely ...