United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Northern Division
HASSAN J. SAYLES PLAINTIFF
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION DEFENDANT
following Recommended Disposition
(“Recommendation”) has been sent to United States
District Judge J. Leon Holmes. 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.
Hassan J. Sayles, applied for disability benefits on August
13, 2015, alleging a disability onset date of July 14, 2015.
(Tr. at 14). The application was denied initially and upon
reconsideration Id. After conducting a hearing, the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Mr.
Sayles' claim. (Tr. at 25). The Appeals Council denied
his request for review. (Tr. at 1). The ALJ's decision
now stands as the final decision of the Commissioner, and Mr.
Sayles has requested judicial review.
reasons stated below, the Court should affirm the decision of
The Commissioner's Decision:
found that Mr. Sayles had not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since the alleged onset date of July 14, 2015. (Tr.
at 16). At Step Two of the sequential five-step analysis, the
ALJ found that Mr. Sayles had the following severe
impairments: history of partial amputation of left foot,
ligament injury of left knee, and pelvic fracture (status
post reconstructive surgery). Id.
found that Mr. Sayles's impairment did not meet or equal
a listed impairment. (Tr. at 17). Before proceeding
to Step Four, the ALJ determined that Mr. Sayles had the
residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform
work at the sedentary level, with some limitations.
Id. He could only occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch,
crawl, and balance. Id. He could not use foot
controls on the left. Id.
next found that Mr. Sayles had no past relevant work. (Tr. at
24). The ALJ relied on the testimony of a Vocational Expert
("VE") to find that, considering Mr. Sayles's
age, education, work experience and RFC, jobs existed in
significant numbers in the national economy that he could
perform, such as final assembler optical and call out
operator. (Tr. at 25). Therefore, the ALJ found that
Mr. Sayles was not disabled. Id.
Standard of Review
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
“[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)
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 record as a whole which supports
the decision of the ALJ. Miller, 784 F.3d at 477.
The Court has ...