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.

Amberger v. Berryhill

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

February 11, 2019

HAZEL M. AMBERGER PLAINTIFF
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Deputy Commissioner for Operations, performing the duties and functions not reserved to the Commissioner of Social Security DEFENDANT

          RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

         The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to United States District Judge D. P. Marshall, 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, Hazel M. Amberger (“Amberger”), applied for disability benefits on June 15, 2015, alleging disability beginning on February 10, 2014. (Tr. at 22). After conducting a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied her application. (Tr. at 33). 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 Amberger had not engaged in substantial gainful activity from the alleged onset date of February 10, 2014 through the date last insured of June 30, 2015. (Tr. at 24). At Step Two, the ALJ found that Amberger has the following severe impairments: migraines, fibromyalgia, degenerative joint disease, shoulder pain, and obesity. Id.

         After finding that Amberger's impairment did not meet or equal a listed impairment (Tr. at 24), the ALJ determined that Amberger had the residual functional capacity (ARFC@) to perform the full range of light work, except that: (1) she could only occasionally reach overhead with her right dominant extremity; and (2) she could not be exposed to temperature extremes, humidity, dust, fumes, or chemicals. (Tr. at 25).

         The ALJ found that, based on her RFC, Amberger was unable to perform any of her past relevant work. (Tr. at 31). At Step Five, the ALJ relied on the testimony of a Vocational Expert ("VE") to find that, based on Amberger's age, education, work experience and RFC, jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy that she could perform, including work as counter clerk and a furniture rental consultant. (Tr. at 32). Thus, the ALJ found that Amberger was not disabled.

         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 ...


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.