Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_24-cv-05092/USCOURTS-arwd-5_24-cv-05092-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405g Review of HHS Decision (RSI)

---

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

 

RONALD MOORE PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL NO. 24-5092 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

1

 Acting Commissioner

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, Ronald Moore, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial 

review of a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (Commissioner) 

denying his claims for period of disability and disability insurance benefits (DIB) under the 

provisions of Title II of the Social Security Act (Act). In this judicial review, the Court must 

determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the 

Commissioner's decision. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Plaintiff protectively filed his current application for DIB on November 15, 2021, alleging 

an inability to work since July 10, 2017,

2 due to post-traumatic stress disorder, gastroesophageal 

reflux disease, neuropathy in the limbs, back issues, and hand issues. (Tr. 63, 157, 164). For DIB 

1 Carolyn W. Colvin, has been appointed to serve as Acting Commissioner of the Social Security 

Administration, and is substituted as Defendant pursuant to Rule 25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. 

2 Plaintiff, through his counsel, amended the alleged onset date to January 1, 2017. (Tr. 14, 33-

34).

Case 5:24-cv-05092-CDC Document 15 Filed 12/23/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>
2

purposes, Plaintiff maintained insured status through March 31, 2017. (Tr. 14, 173). An 

administrative telephonic hearing was held on February 23, 2023, at which Plaintiff appeared with 

counsel and testified. (Tr. 29-61). 

By written decision dated June 20, 2023, the ALJ found that during the relevant time 

period, Plaintiff had an impairment or combination of impairments that were severe. (Tr. 16). 

Specifically, the ALJ found that through the date last insured Plaintiff had the following severe 

impairments: degenerative disc disease, diffuse joint pain (ankle, knee, and back), and posttraumatic stress disorder. However, after reviewing all of the evidence presented, the ALJ 

determined that through the date last insured Plaintiff’s impairments did not meet or equal the level 

of severity of any impairment listed in the Listing of Impairments found in Appendix I, Subpart P, 

Regulation No. 4. (Tr. 17). The ALJ found that through the date last insured Plaintiff retained the 

residual functional capacity (RFC) to:

[P]erform medium work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(c) except he is limited to 

jobs involving simple tasks with no detailed or complex instructions, and with only 

incidental contact with the general public. In addition, he can perform only 

occasional overhead reaching.

(Tr. 18). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ determined that through the date last insured 

Plaintiff could perform work as a store laborer, a hand packager, and a motor vehicle assembler. 

(ECF. 24-25).

Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council, who 

denied that request on February 21, 2024. (Tr. 1-6). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this action. (ECF 

No. 2). This case is before the undersigned pursuant to the consent of the parties. (ECF No. 5). 

Both parties have filed appeal briefs, and the case is now ready for decision. (ECF Nos. 13, 14).

This Court's role is to determine whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by 

substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Ramirez v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 576, 583 (8th Cir. 

Case 5:24-cv-05092-CDC Document 15 Filed 12/23/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>
3

2002). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance, but it is enough that a reasonable mind 

would find it adequate to support the Commissioner's decision. The ALJ's decision must be 

affirmed if the record contains substantial evidence to support it. Edwards v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 

964, 966 (8th Cir. 2003). As long as there is substantial evidence in the record that supports the 

Commissioner's decision, the Court may not reverse it simply because substantial evidence exists 

in the record that would have supported a contrary outcome, or because the Court would have 

decided the case differently. Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2001). In other words, 

if after reviewing the record it is possible to draw two inconsistent positions from the evidence and 

one of those positions represents the findings of the ALJ, the decision of the ALJ must be affirmed. 

Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065, 1068 (8th Cir. 2000).

Plaintiff argues the following issues on appeal: 1) The ALJ failed to provide comprehensive 

analysis of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints; 2) The ALJ failed to give appropriate weight to 

Plaintiff’s medical evidence; 3) The ALJ established a faulty RFC for Plaintiff; and 4) The ALJ 

failed to establish substantial job availability that Plaintiff could still perform. (ECF No. 13). 

Defendant argues the ALJ properly considered all the evidence, and the decision is supported by 

substantial evidence. (ECF No. 14).

In order to have insured status under the Act, an individual is required to have twenty 

quarters of coverage in each forty-quarter period ending with the first quarter of disability. 42 

U.S.C. § 416(i)(3)(B). Plaintiff last met this requirement on March 31, 2017. Regarding Plaintiff’s 

application for DIB, the overreaching issue in this case is the question of whether Plaintiff was 

disabled during the relevant time period of January 1, 2017, his amended alleged onset date of 

disability, through March 31, 2017, the last date he was in insured status under Title II of the Act.

To qualify for DIB, Plaintiff must prove that on or before the expiration of his insured status he 

Case 5:24-cv-05092-CDC Document 15 Filed 12/23/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>
4

was unable to engage in substantial gainful activity due to a medically determinable physical or 

mental impairment which is expected to last for at least twelve months or result in death. Basinger 

v. Heckler, 725 F.2d 1166, 1168 (8th Cir. 1984). 

The Court has reviewed the entire transcript and the parties’ briefs and finds that substantial 

evidence of record supports the ALJ’s determination. In determining that Plaintiff maintained the 

RFC to perform medium work with limitations prior to his date last insured, the ALJ considered 

the medical assessment of the non-examining agency medical consultants; Plaintiff’s subjective 

complaints; and his medical records. While Plaintiff disagrees with the ALJ’s RFC determination, 

after reviewing the record as a whole, the Court finds Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of showing 

a more restrictive RFC prior to his date last insured. See Perks v. Astrue, 687 F. 3d 1086, 1092 

(8th Cir. 2012) (burden of persuasion to demonstrate RFC and prove disability remains on 

claimant). 

With respect to the ALJ’s Step Five determination, the Court finds that the vocational 

expert's opinion constitutes substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's conclusion that Plaintiff's 

impairments did not preclude him from performing work as a store laborer, a hand packager, and 

a motor vehicle assembler prior to his date last insured. Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 794 (8th 

Cir. 2005) (testimony from vocational expert based on properly phrased hypothetical question 

constitutes substantial evidence). 

For the reasons stated in the ALJ’s well-reasoned opinion, the Court finds Plaintiff’s 

arguments to be without merit and finds that the record as a whole reflects substantial evidence to 

support the ALJ’s decision. Accordingly, the ALJ’s decision is hereby summarily affirmed, and 

Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. See Sledge v. Astrue, No. 08-0089, 2008 WL 

Case 5:24-cv-05092-CDC Document 15 Filed 12/23/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>
5 

4816675 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 31, 2008) (summarily affirming ALJ’s denial of disability benefits), 

aff’d, 364 Fed. Appx. 307 (8th Cir. 2010). 

DATED this 23rd day of December 2024. 

 

 /s/_________________________________ 

 CHRISTY COMSTOCK

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:24-cv-05092-CDC Document 15 Filed 12/23/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>