United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division
HOLLAND M. JOHNSON PLAINTIFF
v.
ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security Administration[1] DEFENDANT
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 ...