Johnson v. Saul

          RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

         The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to United States District Judge James M. Moody, 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, Holland M. Johnson (“Johnson”), applied for disability benefits on August 22, 2016, alleging disability beginning on that date. (Tr. at 15). After conducting a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied her application. (Tr. at 24). 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.

         For the reasons stated below, this Court should reverse the ALJ's decision and remand for further review.

         II. The Commissioner's Decision:

         The ALJ found that Johnson had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date of August 22, 2016. (Tr. at 17). At Step Two, the ALJ found that Johnson had the following severe impairments: hernias and anxiety disorder. Id.

         After finding that Johnson's impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment (Tr. at 18), the ALJ determined that Johnson had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform the full range of work at the medium exertional level, except that: (1) she could perform work where interpersonal contact is incidental to the work performed; (2) work is limited to tasks that can be learned and performed by rote with few variables and little judgment; (3) Johnson requires simple, direct, and concrete supervision; and (4) she is limited to work that does not require reading ability beyond a grade school level. (Tr. at 19).

         The ALJ found that Johnson had no past relevant work. At Step Five, the ALJ relied upon the testimony of a Vocational Expert (“VE”) to find that, based on Johnson's age, education, work experience and RFC, she could perform other jobs, such as conveyor feeder off bearer, hand packager, and kitchen helper. (Tr. at 24). Thus, the ALJ held that Johnson 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 ...