United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Northern Division
JAMES E. HELBERG 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 Billy Roy Wilson. 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,
James E. Helberg (“Helberg”), applied for
disability benefits on November 1, 2016, alleging disability
beginning on May 13, 2009.[2] (Tr. at 11). After conducting a
hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)
denied his application. (Tr. at 34). The Appeals Council
denied Helberg’s request for review. (Tr. at 1). Thus,
the ALJ's decision now stands as the final decision of
the Commissioner. Helberg has filed a Complaint seeking
judicial review from this Court.
For the
reasons stated below, the Court concludes that the
Commissioner’s decision should be affirmed.
II.
The Commissioner's Decision:
The ALJ
found that Helberg had not engaged in substantial gainful
since his amended alleged onset date of November 1, 2016.
(Tr. at 13). At Step Two, the ALJ found that Helberg has the
following severe impairments: status post remote history of
thoracic fractures and left shoulder injury; status post
remote right ankle fracture with surgery; obesity; depressive
disorder; anxiety disorder; and post-traumatic stress
disorder. Id.
After
finding that Helberg’ impairments did not meet or equal
a listed impairment (Tr. at 16), the ALJ determined that
Helberg had the residual functional capacity
(“RFC”) to perform the full range of light work,
except that: (1) he can frequently reach overhead with the
left (non-dominant) upper extremity; (2) the work must be
unskilled, with simple, routine, and repetitive tasks, and
supervision that is simple, direct, and concrete; and (3) he
can maintain frequent contact with coworkers and supervisors
and occasional contact with the general public. (Tr. at 18).
The ALJ
found that, based on Helberg’s RFC and Vocational
Expert (“VE”) testimony, Helberg was able to
perform his past work as a production assembler. (Tr. at 32).
The ALJ made an alternative finding at Step Five.
Id. He relied on the testimony of a Vocational
Expert ("VE") to find that, based on Helberg's
age, education, work experience and RFC, jobs existed in
significant numbers in the national economy that he could
perform, including work as an inspector/hand packager and a
routing clerk. (Tr. at 33). Thus, the ALJ found that Helberg
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 ...