United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
The
following Recommended Disposition
(“Recommendation”) has been sent to United States
Chief 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,
Yoonjong Faubus (“Faubus”), applied for
disability benefits on July 10, 2014, alleging disability
beginning on October 1, 2009.[1] (Tr. at 21). After conducting a
hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)
denied her application. (Tr. at 30). 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. Faubus has filed a Complaint seeking judicial
review from this Court.
For the
reasons stated below, the Court concludes that the
Commissioner's decision should be affirmed.
II.
The Commissioner's Decision:
The ALJ
found that Faubus had not engaged in substantial gainful
activity during the period from her alleged onset date of
October 1, 2009 through the date last insured of December 31,
2014. (Tr. at 23). At Step Two, the ALJ found that Faubus has
the following severe impairments: neuropathy, depression,
diabetes, arthralgias, history of sensorium hearing loss,
history of cognitive impairment, and history of headaches.
(Tr. at 23).
After
finding that Faubus's impairment did not meet or equal a
listed impairment (Tr. at 24), the ALJ determined that Faubus
had the residual functional capacity
(''RFC'') to perform the full range of light
work, except that: (1) she cannot work from ropes, ladders,
scaffolding, or unprotected heights; (2) she can perform
simple, routine, and repetitive tasks with supervision that
is simple, direct, and concrete; (3) she can have frequent
interaction with her coworkers and supervisors, and
occasional interaction with the public; and (4) she is
limited to work at a hearing level of 3, consistent with work
in an office setting, and would need to work in a workplace
free of sounds such as factory, assembly work, or machinery
noise. (Tr. at 25).
The ALJ
found that, based on her RFC, Faubus was unable to perform
any past relevant work. (Tr. at 28). At Step Five, the ALJ
relied on the testimony of a Vocational Expert
("VE") to find that, based on Faubus's age,
education, work experience and RFC, jobs existed in
significant numbers in the national economy that she could
perform, including work as a price marker and cleaner in
housekeeping. (Tr. at 30). Thus, the ALJ found that Faubus
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 ...