United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division
BRIAN R. KUTACH 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 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.
I.
Introduction:
Plaintiff,
Brian R. Kutach (“Kutach”), applied for
disability benefits on December 7, 2015, alleging disability
beginning on October 12, 2011. (Tr. at 15). After conducting
a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)
denied his application. (Tr. at 24). The Appeals Council
denied his 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 Kutach had not engaged in substantial gainful
activity from the amended alleged onset date of July 19, 2014
through the date last insured of December 31,
2016.[1] (Tr. at 17). At Step Two, the ALJ found
that Kutach has the following severe impairments: gouty
arthropathy with some degenerative joint disease of the
knees, diabetes mellitus with neuropathy, hypertension,
history of pancreatitis without evidence of complication, and
morbid obesity. Id.
After
finding that Kutach's impairment did not meet or equal a
listed impairment (Tr. at 18), the ALJ determined that Kutach
had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to
perform the full range of light work, except that he could
only occasionally climb, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and
crawl. (Tr. at 19).
The ALJ
found that, based on his RFC, Kutach was able to perform past
relevant work as a paper machine supervisor. (Tr. at 24).
Thus, the ALJ found that Kutach 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 ...