Campbell v. Berryhill

          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 ...