United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Eastern Division
ANTWON T. MOONEY PLAINTIFF
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINSTRATION DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff
Antwon T. Mooney has appealed the final decision of the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying
his claim for supplemental security income. Both parties have
submitted appeal briefs, and the case is ready for
decision.[1]
I.
Background:
In
2015, Mr. Mooney alleged inability to work because he was a
slow learner and he had a rod in his left leg from a gunshot
wound. (Tr. 20, 39, 41-42, 54, 181) After a hearing, an
administrative law judge (ALJ) issued an unfavorable decision
denying Mr. Mooney's claim. (Tr. 20-31) In February 2018,
the Appeals Council denied review, and Mr. Mooney appealed to
this Court. (Tr. 6-10) (Docket entry #11)
Mr.
Mooney was 24 years old at the time of the hearing before the
ALJ. (Tr. 40) He had completed the eleventh grade in special
education classes. (Tr. 30, 42, 182) He lived with his mother
(Tr. 40) and had no past work experience (Tr. 42-43).
II.
The ALJ's Decision:
The
ALJ[2]
determined that Mr. Mooney had not engaged in substantial
gainful activity since March 31, 2015.[3] His joint
dysfunction and intellectual disability were both deemed
severe impairments; but, he did not have an impairment or
combination of impairments that met a listed impairment. (Tr.
22-26) The ALJ further found that Mr. Mooney's
allegations regarding the intensity, persistence, and
limiting effects of his symptoms were not entirely credible
because they were not consistent with the medical evidence.
(Tr. 27)
Based
on these findings, the ALJ concluded that, during the
relevant time period, Mr. Mooney retained the residual
functional capacity (RFC) for sedentary work where
interpersonal contact is incidental to the work performed.
“Incidental” in this context would mean that
interpersonal contact would require limited interaction, such
as meeting and greeting the public, answering simple
questions, accepting payment and making change. The
complexity of tasks assigned to Mr. Mooney would have to be
learned by demonstration or repetition within 30 days, with
few variables, and with little required judgment. Supervision
would have to be simple, direct and concrete. (Tr. 26-30)
The ALJ
relied on the testimony of a Vocational Expert (VE) to find
at step 5 to find, based on Mr. Mooney's age, education,
work experience and RFC, that he could perform assembly and
inspector jobs available in the national economy. (Tr. 30)
The VE identified fishing reel assembler, described in the
Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) 732.684-062, as an
unskilled, sedentary job that Mr. Mooney could perform. (Tr.
31) The ALJ determined, therefore, that Mr. Mooney was not
disabled. (Tr. 31)
III.
Discussion:
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 the decision is
free of legal error. Chismarich v. Berryhill, 888
F.3d 978, 979 (8th Cir. 2018); see also 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g). Substantial evidence in this context means
relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as
adequate to support a conclusion. Id. (citing
Jones v. Astrue, 619 F.3d 963, 968 (8th Cir. 2010)
(other citation omitted). Substantial evidence on the record
as a whole means that the court must take into
account record evidence that both supports and detracts from
the ALJ's decision. Stanton v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec.
Admin., 899 F.3d 555, 557 (8th Cir. 2018) (citation
omitted). Reversal is not warranted, however, “merely
because substantial evidence would have supported an opposite
decision.” Tilley v. Astrue, 580 F.3d 675, 679
(8th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted).
A.
Issue on Appeal
Mr.
Mooney raises one issue on appeal. He claims that the ALJ
erred by failing to resolve a conflict between the assigned
RFC, the VE's testimony, and the DOT. He cites Social
Security Ruling 00-4p in support of his argument. (#11) More
specifically, he complains that the ALJ erred by relying on
the VE's testimony that someone with his RFC could
perform the job of fishing reel inspector, which has a
special vocational preparation (SVP) level of two, even
though he was limited to performing jobs with an SVP level of
one. The Commissioner contends that substantial evidence
supports the decision that Mr. Mooney was not disabled,
because the ALJ properly relied on the VE's testimony.
B.
...