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.

Lovell v. Social Security Administration

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

January 22, 2019

BILLY JAMES LOVELL PLAINTIFF
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION DEFENDANT

          RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

         The 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.

         I. Introduction:

         Plaintiff, Billy James Lovell, applied for disability benefits on April 1, 2015, alleging a disability onset date of March 28, 2015. (Tr. at 10). After conducting a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied his application. (Tr. at 22). The Appeals Council denied his request for review. (Tr. at 1). The ALJ's decision now stands as the final decision of the Commissioner. Lovell has requested judicial review.

         For the reasons stated below, this Court should reverse the ALJ's decision and remand for further review.

         II. The Commissioner=s Decision:

         The ALJ found that Lovell had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date of March 28, 2015. (Tr. at 14). At Step Two, the ALJ found that Lovell has the following severe impairments: anxiety disorder, left eye vision loss, obesity, and skull fracture. Id.

         After finding that Lovell's impairment did not meet or equal a listed impairment (Tr. at 14), the ALJ determined that Lovell had the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform the full range of work at all exertional levels, except that: (1) he could not perform work requiring climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; (2) he could have no exposure to hazards or unprotected heights in the workplace; (3) the work must not require bilateral vision and Lovell would be unable to accurately judge distances; (4) the work must not require exposure to sunlight; (5) he could perform simple, routine, repetitive jobs, where supervision is simple, direct, and concrete; and (6) the jobs would be SVP level 1-2 with no more than normal changes to work place settings. (Tr. at 15-16).

         The ALJ determined that Lovell 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 Lovell's age, education, work experience and RFC, jobs existed in the national economy which he could perform, specifically router and marker (Tr. at 22). Consequently, the ALJ found that Lovell was not disabled. Id.

         III. Discussion:

         A. Standard of Review

         The 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 Aenough 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, Amerely because substantial evidence exists for the opposite decision." Long v. Chater, 108 F.3d 185, 187 (8th Cir. 1997) (quoting Johnson v. Chater, 87 F.3d 1015, 1017 (8th Cir. 1996)).

         B. Lovell's Arguments on Appeal

         Lovell argues that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ's decision to deny benefits. He contends that the ALJ should have found his headaches to be a severe impairment, and that the RFC did not fully incorporate his limitations. For the following reasons, the Court agrees with Lovell with respect to the headaches.

         The claimant has the burden of proving that an impairment is severe, which by definition significantly limits one or more basic work activities. Gonzales v. Barnhart, 465 F.3d 890, 894 (8th Cir. 2006); see Bowen v. Yuckert,482 U.S. 137, 141 (1987); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521(a). A physical or mental impairment must last or be expected to last not less than 12 months. Karlix v. Barnhart,457 F.3d 742, 746 (8th Cir. 2006). If the impairment would have no more than a minimal effect on the claimant's ...


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.