Packer v. Berryhill

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          HON. BARRY A. BRYANT, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Jessica Leann Packer (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant to § 205(g) of Title II of the Social Security Act (“The Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2006), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denying her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Titles II and XVI of the Act.

         Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) (2005), the Honorable P. K. Holmes, III referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a report and recommendation. The Court, having reviewed the entire transcript and relevant briefing, recommends the ALJ's determination be AFFIRMED.

         1. Background:

         Plaintiff's application for DIB and SSI were filed on April 25, 2016. (Tr. 15). Plaintiff alleged she was disabled due to hyperacusis. (Tr. 206). Plaintiff alleged an onset date of June 1, 2005. (Tr. 188). These applications were denied initially and again upon reconsideration. (Tr. 15). Thereafter, Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on her applications and this hearing request was granted. (Tr. 126-127).

         Plaintiff had an administrative hearing on May 17, 2017. (Tr. 35-59). Plaintiff was present and was represented by counsel, Michael Hamby, at this hearing. Id. Plaintiff and Vocational Expert (“VE”) Barbara Hubbard testified at this hearing. Id. At the time of this hearing, Plaintiff was twenty-seven (27) years old and obtained a GED with some college. (Tr. 41).

         On March 12, 2018, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff's application for DIB and SSI. (Tr. 15-28). In this decision, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity (“SGA”) since the alleged onset date of June 1, 2005. (Tr. 17, Finding 2). The ALJ also determined Plaintiff had the severe impairments of hyperacusis, chronic low back pain syndrome, chronic neck pain, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and anxiety. (Tr. 17, Finding 3). The ALJ then determined Plaintiff's impairments did not meet or medically equal the requirements of any of the Listing of Impairments in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Regulations No. 4 (“Listings”). (Tr. 18, Finding 4).

         In this decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints and determined her RFC. (Tr. 19-26). First, the ALJ indicated he evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints and found her claimed limitations were not entirely credible. Id. The ALJ also found Plaintiff retained the RFC to perform light work limited to work involving simple tasks, simple instructions, incidental contact with the public, and no exposure to loud noises. (Tr. 19, Finding 5).

         The ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's Past Relevant Work (“PRW”). (Tr. 26, Finding 6). The ALJ found Plaintiff had no PRW. Id. The ALJ, however, also determined there was other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy Plaintiff could perform. (Tr. 26, Finding 10). The ALJ based his determination upon the testimony of the VE. Id. Specifically, the VE testified that given all Plaintiff's vocational factors, a hypothetical individual would be able to perform the requirements of a such jobs in the nation, routing clerk with 500 such jobs in Arkansas and 53, 400 such jobs in the nation, and hotel housekeeper with 1, 100 such jobs in Arkansas and 134, 000 such jobs in the nation. Id. Based upon this finding, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not been under a disability as defined by the Act from June 1, 2005. (Tr. 27, Finding 11).

         Thereafter, Plaintiff requested that the Appeals Council review the ALJ's unfavorable decision. (Tr. 181-182). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.968. On August 9, 2018, the Appeals Council declined to review this unfavorable decision. (Tr. 1-6). On September 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed the present appeal. ECF No. 1. Both parties have filed appeal briefs. ECF Nos. 14, 15. This case is now ready for decision.

         2. Applicable Law:

         In reviewing this case, this Court is required to determine whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2006); Ramirez v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 576, 583 (8th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance of the evidence, but it is enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support the Commissioner's decision. See Johnson v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1145, 1147 (8th Cir. 2001). As long as there is substantial evidence in the record that supports the Commissioner's decision, the Court may not reverse it simply because substantial evidence exists in the record that would have supported a contrary outcome or because the Court would have decided the case differently. See Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2001). If, after reviewing the record, it is possible to draw two inconsistent positions from the evidence and one of those positions represents the findings of the ALJ, the decision of the ALJ must be affirmed. See Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065, 1068 (8th Cir. 2000).

         It is well established that a claimant for Social Security disability benefits has the burden of proving his or her disability by establishing a physical or mental disability that lasted at least one year F.3d 1203, 1206 (8th Cir. 1998); 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act defines a “physical or mental impairment” as “an impairment that results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(3), 1382(3)(c). A plaintiff must show that his or her disability, not simply his or her impairment, has lasted for at least twelve consecutive months. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A).

         To determine whether the adult claimant suffers from a disability, the Commissioner uses the familiar five-step sequential evaluation. He determines: (1) whether the claimant is presently engaged in a “substantial gainful activity”; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment that significantly limits the claimant's physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities; (3) whether the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals a presumptively disabling impairment listed in the regulations (if so, the claimant is disabled without regard to age, education, and work experience); (4) whether the claimant has the Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) to perform his or her past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant cannot perform the past work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove that there are other jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform. See Cox, 160 F.3d at 1206; 20 C.F.R. ...