United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
The
following Recommended Disposition
(“Recommendation”) has been sent to Chief United
States 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.
I.
Introduction:
Plaintiff,
Vincent Frank Swad, applied for disability benefits on August
26, 2014, alleging a disability onset date of May 1,
2013.[1] (Tr. at 30). The application was denied
initially and upon reconsideration Id. After
conducting a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) denied Mr. Swad's claim. (Tr. at
40-41). The Appeals Council denied his request for review.
(Tr. at 1). The ALJ's decision now stands as the final
decision of the Commissioner, and Mr. Swad has requested
judicial review.
For the
reasons stated below, the Court should affirm the decision of
the Commissioner.
II.
The Commissioner's Decision:
The ALJ
found that Mr. Swad had not engaged in substantial gainful
activity during the period from the alleged onset date
through the date last insured of December 31, 2013. (Tr. at
32). At Step Two of the sequential five-step analysis, the
ALJ found that Mr. Swad had the following severe impairments:
plantar fasciitis, carpal tunnel syndrome, left ankle
fracture status post open reduction internal fixation,
osteoarthritis of the spine, peripheral neuropathy, restless
legs syndrome, Dupuytren's contracture, mood disorder,
and bipolar disorder. (Tr. at 33).
The ALJ
found that Mr. Swad's impairments did not meet or equal a
listed impairment. Id. Before proceeding to Step
Four, the ALJ determined that Mr. Swad had the residual
functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform work at
the light level, with some limitations. Id. He must
be able to use a cane as needed to move to and from the
workstation; he is limited to no balancing or climbing of
ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; he could perform no more than
frequent handling and could not perform foot control
operations; he must not be exposed to unprotected heights or
hazards in the workplace; and he would be limited to simple,
routine, repetitive tasks with simple, direct, and concrete
supervision (unskilled work). (Tr. at 35).
The ALJ
next found that Mr. Swad was unable to perform any past
relevant work. (Tr. at 38). The ALJ relied on the testimony
of a Vocational Expert ("VE") to find that,
considering Mr. Swad's age, education, work experience
and RFC, jobs existed in significant numbers in the national
economy that he could perform, such as office helper and
sales attendant. (Tr. at 40). Therefore, the ALJ
found that Mr. Swad 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 record as a whole which supports
the decision of the ALJ. Miller, 784 F.3d at 477.
The Court has ...