United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Jonesboro Division
TERESA M. PALMORE PLAINTIFF
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION DEFENDANT
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
The
following Recommended Disposition
(“Recommendation”) has been sent to United States
District Judge Kristine G. Baker. 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,
Teresa M. Palmore, applied for disability benefits on August
20, 2015, alleging a disability onset date of June 10, 2015.
(Tr. at 24). 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). The ALJ's decision now stands as the final
decision of the Commissioner. Ms. Palmore has requested
judicial review.
For the
reasons stated below, this Court should affirm the ALJ's
decision.
II.
The Commissioner's Decision:
Ms.
Palmore was 41 years old on the alleged onset date of
disability, June 10, 2015. (Tr. at 49, 50). She was
5'5” and 360 pounds. (Tr. at 58). The ALJ found
that Ms. Palmore had not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since the alleged onset date. (Tr. at 26). At Step
Two, the ALJ found that Ms. Palmore has the following severe
impairments: right foot stress fracture, Achilles tendonitis
of the left ankle, degenerative disc disease, bilateral
carpal tunnel syndrome, left cubital tunnel syndrome, and
obesity. Id.
After
finding that Ms. Palmore's impairment did not meet or
equal a listed impairment (Tr. at 27), the ALJ determined
that Ms. Palmore had the residual functional capacity
(“RFC”) to perform the full range of sedentary
work, except that: (1) she would require a sit/stand option
that involves standing or walking intervals of 15 minutes and
sitting in intervals of 30 minutes; (2) she could
occasionally use both hands for gross manipulation but
frequently use both hands for fine manipulation; (3) she must
avoid exposure to hazards such as moving mechanical parts of
equipment, tools, or machinery, must avoid electric shock,
and must avoid exposure to unprotected heights. Id.
The ALJ
determined that Ms. Palmore was not capable of performing any
past relevant work. (Tr. at 32). Relying upon the testimony
of the Vocational Expert (“VE”) at Step Five, the
ALJ found that, based on Ms. Palmore's age, education,
work experience and RFC, jobs existed in the national economy
which she could perform, specifically callout operator and
surveillance systems monitor. (Tr. at 33). Consequently, the
ALJ found that Ms. Palmore 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 ...