Farris v. Social Security Administration

          RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

         The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to United States District Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. 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, Steven L. Farris, applied for disability benefits on February 18, 2015, alleging a disability onset date of February 4, 2011.^[1] (Tr. at 11). The application was denied initially and upon reconsideration Id. After conducting a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Mr. Farris's claim. (Tr. at 22). 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. Farris 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. Farris had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the amended alleged onset date of February 18, 2015. (Tr. at 13). At Step Two of the sequential five-step analysis, the ALJ found that Mr. Farris had the following severe impairments: history of myocardial infarction; heart palpitations; a hernia repair; removal of appendix, gall bladder, and spleen, and one third of stomach; degenerative disc disease; diabetes mellitus; and obesity. Id.

         The ALJ found that Mr. Farris's impairment did not meet or equal a listed impairment. (Tr. at 14). Before proceeding to Step Four, the ALJ determined that Mr. Farris had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform work at the light level, but reaching and handling were limited to frequently, or two thirds of the day. (Tr. at 16).

         The ALJ next found that Mr. Farris was unable to perform his past relevant work. (Tr. at 19). The ALJ relied on the testimony of a Vocational Expert ("VE") to find that, considering Mr. Farris's age, education, work experience and RFC, jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy that he could perform. (Tr. at 21). Therefore, the ALJ found that Mr. Farris 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 ...