Source: http://ia.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180717_0000490.NIA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 01:54:52+00:00

Document:
This case is before me on a Report & Recommendation (R&R) by the Honorable C.J. Williams, Chief United States Magistrate Judge. Doc. No. 19. Judge Williams recommends that I reverse the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security and remand this case with instructions pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Commissioner has filed an objection (Doc. No. 20) to the R&R and Ware has responded (Doc. No. 21).
The Commissioner's decision must be affirmed “if it is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.” Pelkey v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 575, 577 (8th Cir. 2006); see 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“The findings of the Commissioner . . . as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive . . . .”). “Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance, but enough that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Lewis v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 642, 645 (8th Cir. 2003). The Eighth Circuit explains the standard as “something less than the weight of the evidence and [that] allows for the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions, thus it embodies a zone of choice within which the [Commissioner] may decide to grant or deny benefits without being subject to reversal on appeal.” Culbertson v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 934, 939 (8th Cir. 1994).
To determine whether the Commissioner's decision meets this standard, the court considers “all of the evidence that was before the ALJ, but it [does] not re-weigh the evidence.” Vester v. Barnhart, 416 F.3d 886, 889 (8th Cir. 2005). The court considers both evidence which supports and detracts from the Commissioner's decision. Kluesner v. Astrue, 607 F.3d 533, 536 (8th Cir. 2010). The court “must search the record for evidence contradicting the [Commissioner's] decision and give that evidence appropriate weight when determining whether the overall evidence in support is substantial.” Baldwin v. Barnhart, 349 F.3d 549, 555 (8th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).
To evaluate the evidence in an appeal of a denial of benefits, the court must apply a balancing test to assess any contradictory evidence. Sobania v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 879 F.2d 441, 444 (8th Cir. 1989). The court, however, does not “reweigh the evidence presented to the ALJ, ” Baldwin, 349 F.3d at 555 (citation omitted), or “review the factual record de novo.” Roe v. Chater, 92 F.3d 672, 675 (8th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). Instead, if, after reviewing the evidence, the court “find[s] it possible to draw two inconsistent positions from the evidence and one of those positions represents the Commissioner's findings, [the court] must affirm the [Commissioner's] denial of benefits.” Kluesner, 607 F.3d at 536 (quoting Finch v. Astrue, 547 F.3d 933, 935 (8th Cir. 2008)). This is true even if the court “might have weighed the evidence differently.” Culbertson, 30 F.3d at 939 (citation omitted). The court may not reverse the Commissioner's decision “merely because substantial evidence would have supported an opposite decision.” Baker v. Heckler, 730 F.2d 1147, 1150 (8th Cir. 1984); see also Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 789 (8th Cir. 2005) (“[A]n administrative decision is not subject to reversal simply because some evidence may support the opposite conclusion.”).
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Thus, when a party objects to any portion of an R&R, the district judge must undertake a de novo review of that portion.
Ware alleged disability due to degenerative disc disease in her neck and lower back, fibromyalgia, schizophrenia, right shoulder rotator cuff tear, right-knee osteoarthritis and asthma. AR 25. The ALJ found that each of these impairments except right-knee osteoarthritis were severe. Id. The ALJ next determined that Ware retained the Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) to perform “light work” with certain physical restrictions: “[Ware] can only occasionally climb, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl; she can occasionally lift overhead bilaterally; should avoid concentrated exposure to extreme heat and cold; and should avoid concentrated exposure to pulmonary irritants.” AR 26. The ALJ determined that although Ware was no longer capable of performing past relevant work, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Ware can perform. AR 29. As a result, the ALJ found that Ware was not disabled.

References: § 405
 v. 
 § 405
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 636