United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
The
following Recommended Disposition
(“Recommendation”) has been sent to United States
District Judge Billy Roy Wilson. 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,
Clodis Shane McCuien (“McCuien”), applied for
disability benefits on December 9, 2014, alleging disability
beginning on October 1, 2014. (Tr. at 18). After conducting a
hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)
denied his application. (Tr. at 28). 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:
At the
time of the hearing, McCuien was 33 years old and weighed 352
pounds. (Tr. at 24, 27). The ALJ found that McCuien had not
engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged
onset date of October 1, 2014. (Tr. at 20). At Step Two, the
ALJ found that McCuien has the following severe impairments:
posterior tibial tendon dysfunction, bilateral flat feet,
obesity, and mood disorder. (Tr. at 20).
After
finding that McCuien's impairment did not meet or equal a
listed impairment (Tr. at 21), the ALJ determined that
McCuien had the residual functional capacity (ARFC@) to
perform the full range of sedentary work, except that: (1) he
is limited to occasional stooping, crouching, crawling,
kneeling, bending, and balancing, and is unable to operate
foot controls; and (2) he is limited to simple, routine, and
repetitive tasks where the supervision is simple, direct, and
concrete. (Tr. at 23).
The ALJ
found that, based on his RFC, McCuien was unable to perform
any past relevant work. (Tr. at 27). At Step Five, the ALJ
relied on the testimony of a Vocational Expert
("VE") to find that, based on McCuien's age,
education, work experience and RFC, jobs existed in
significant numbers in the national economy that he could
perform, including work as a final assembler of optical goods
and surveillance systems monitor. (Tr. at 28). Thus, the ALJ
found that McCuien 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 ...