United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
The
following Recommended Disposition
(“Recommendation”) has been sent to United States
District Judge Billy Roy Wilson. 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,
Stachia Campbell (“Campbell”), applied for
disability benefits on August 2, 2015, alleging a disability
onset date of January 1, 1996. (Tr. at 20). After conducting
a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)
denied her application. (Tr. at 29). The Appeals Council
denied her request for review. (Tr. at 1). Thus, the
ALJ's decision now stands as the final decision of the
Commissioner.
For the
reasons stated below, the Commissioner's decision should
be affirmed.
II.
The Commissioner's Decision:
The ALJ
found that Campbell had not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since the alleged onset date of January 1, 1996.
(Tr. at 22). At Step Two, the ALJ found that Campbell has the
following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease,
seizure disorder, and anxiety disorder. Id.
After
finding that Campbell's impairment did not meet or equal
a listed impairment (Tr. at 23), the ALJ determined that
Campbell had the residual functional capacity
(''RFC'') to perform the full range of light
work, except that: (1) she could not frequently balance, or
climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds; (2) she could have no
exposure to hazards; (3) she could perform work where
interpersonal contact is incidental to the work performed,
complexity of tasks can be learned by demonstration or
repetition within 30 days, with few variables and little
judgment; and (4) supervision required is simple, direct, and
concrete. (Tr. at 25).
The ALJ
found that Campbell had no past relevant work. (Tr. at 28).
At Step Five, the ALJ relied on the testimony of a Vocational
Expert ("VE") to find that, based on Campbell's
age, education, work experience and RFC, jobs existed in
significant numbers in the national economy that she could
perform, including work as a cashier II and an usher. (Tr. at
29). Thus, the ALJ concluded that Campbell 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 ...