United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Jonesboro Division
following Recommended Disposition
(“Recommendation”) has been sent to United States
Chief District Judge Brian S. Miller. 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.
Lenora Wilkins, applied for disability benefits on December
2, 2015, alleging a disability onset date of July 27, 2015.
(Tr. at 12). The application was denied initially and upon
reconsideration Id. After conducting a hearing, the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Ms.
Wilkins' claim. (Tr. at 18). 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 Ms.
Wilkins has requested judicial review. For the reasons stated
below, the Court should affirm the decision of the
The Commissioner=s Decision:
found that Ms. Wilkins had not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since the alleged onset date of July 27, 2015. (Tr.
at 14). At Step Two of the sequential five-step analysis, the
ALJ found that Ms. Wilkins had the following severe
impairments: obesity and degenerative disc disease of the
lumbar spine. Id.
found that Ms. Wilkins's impairment did not meet or equal
a listed impairment. (Tr. at 15). Before proceeding
to Step Four, the ALJ determined that Ms. Wilkins had the
residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform
the full range of work at the light level. Id.
next found that Ms. Wilkins was capable of performing her
past relevant work as a line packer and hand packer. (Tr. at
18). Therefore, the ALJ found that Ms. Wilkins was not
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 ...