United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division
JIMMY F. HARRISON PLAINTIFF
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION DEFENDANT
Procedures for filing Objections:
Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has
been sent to District Judge Susan Webber Wright. You may file
written objections to this Recommendation. If you file
objections, they must be specific and must include the
factual or legal basis for your objection.
objections must be received in the office of the United
States District Court Clerk within fourteen (14) days of this
objections are filed, Judge Wright can adopt this
Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. By
not objecting, you may also waive any right to appeal
questions of fact.
Jimmy F. Harrison (“Harrison”), applied for
disability benefits on May 18, 2016, alleging a disability
onset date of January 1, 2013. (Tr. at 32). After conducting
a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (AALJ@) denied his
application. (Tr. at 45). 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
Harrison has requested judicial review.
reasons stated below, this Court should affirm the decision
of the Commissioner.
The Commissioner's Decision:
found that Harrison had not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since the alleged onset date of January 1, 2013 (Tr.
at 35). The ALJ found, at Step Two of the sequential
five-step analysis, that Harrison had the following medically
determinable impairments: history of chronic right knee MRSA
abscess, obesity, bipolar disorder, personality disorder,
posttraumatic stress disorder, panic disorder, and history of
alcohol and stimulant use disorder. Id.
Three, the ALJ determined that Harrison's impairments did
not meet or equal a listed impairment. Id. Before
proceeding to Step Four, the ALJ determined that Harrison had
the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to
perform light work with restrictions: 1) he could only
occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, and crouch; 2) he could
only occasionally climb ramps and stairs, but no ladders,
ropes, or scaffolds; 3) he could tolerate no temperature
extremes or extremes of humidity; 4) he could understand,
remember, and carry out simple and routine instructions and
tasks; 5) he could regulate emotions, control behavior, and
maintain well-being in a work setting with simple tasks and
instructions as long as there are no fast-paced work
production requirements such as assembly line work; 6) he
could learn, recall, and use simple instructions and tasks
that involve simple work-related decisions with few workplace
changes or changes in routine; 7) he could perform jobs that
involve working with the same types of things on a day-to-day
basis; 8) he could interact frequently with supervisors,
occasionally with coworkers, and only incidentally with the
public; and 9) he should work with things rather than people.
(Tr. at 37).
found that Harrison was unable to perform any past relevant
work. (Tr. at 44). Next, the ALJ relied on the testimony of a
Vocational Expert ("VE") to find that, considering
Harrison's age, education, work experience and RFC, jobs
existed in significant numbers in the national economy that
he could perform, such as marking clerk and routing clerk.
(Tr. at 45). Therefore, the ALJ found that Harrison was not
Standard of Review
Court's role is to determine whether the
Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial
evidence. Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010, 1012 (8th
Cir. 2000). "Substantial evidence" in this context
means less than a preponderance but more than a scintilla.
Slusser v. Astrue, 557 F.3d 923, 925 (8th Cir.
2009). In other words, it is "enough that a reasonable
mind would find it adequate to support the ALJ's
decision." Id. (citation omitted). The Court
must consider not only evidence that supports the
Commissioner's decision, but also evidence that supports
a contrary outcome. The Court cannot reverse the decision,
however, “merely because substantial ...