Source: http://ar.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20161109_0001435.WAR.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-07-20 06:34:22
Document Index: 49090164

Matched Legal Cases: ['§405', '§405', 'art, 292', 'art. 314', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§404']

CHRISTY PORTER, PLAINTIFF
Plaintiff, Christy Porter, 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 her claims for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income benefits (SSI) under the provisions of Titles II and XVI 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 filed her current applications for DIB and SSI on August 15, 2012, alleging an inability to work since March 1, 2011, due to a back injury and bladder problems. (Tr. 49-50, 182-191, 215, 219). An administrative hearing was held on September 16, 2013, at which Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified. (Tr. 30-48).
By written decision dated November 22, 2013, the ALJ found that during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had an impairment or combination of impairments that were severe -low back pain and status post L5-S1 fusion. (Tr. 15). However, after reviewing all of the evidence presented, the ALJ determined that Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform the full range of light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b). (Tr. 18). With the help of the vocational expert (VE), the ALJ determined that during the relevant time period, Plaintiff would be able to perform her past relevant work as a car rental clerk and bar tender. (Tr. 23).
Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council, which denied that request on May 11, 2015. (Tr. 1-4). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this action. (Doc. 1). This case is before the undersigned pursuant to the consent of the parties. (Doc. 7). Both parties have filed appeal briefs, and the case is now ready for decision. (Docs. 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 (8* Cir. 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 (8* 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).
The Commissioner's regulations require him to apply a five-step sequential evaluation process to each claim for disability benefits: (1) whether the claimant had engaged in substantial gainful activity since filing her claim; (2) whether the claimant had a severe physical and/or mental impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment(s) met or equaled an impairment in the listings; (4) whether the impairment(s) prevented the claimant from doing past relevant work; and (5) whether the claimant was able to perform other work in the national economy given her age, education, and experience. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 Only if the final stage is reached does the fact finder consider the Plaintiffs age, education, and work experience in light of her RFC. See McCoy v. Schneider, 683 F.2d 1138, 1141-42 (8th Cir. 1982); 20 C.F.R.§§ 404.1520, 416.920 abrogated on other grounds by Higgins v. Apfel 222 F.3d 504, 505 (8th Cir. 2000); 20 C.F.R.§ §404.1520, 416.920.
Plaintiff raises the following issues in this matter: 1) Whether the ALJ considered Plaintiffs depression and anxiety; 2) Whether the ALJ erred in his credibility analysis; and 3) Whether the ALJ failed to fully and fairly develop the record. (Doc. 13).
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A. Consideration of Plaintiffs ...