Clifford v. Berryhill

          ORDER

          JEFFREY L. VIKEN CHIEF JUDGE

         Plaintiff Cherry Clifford filed a complaint appealing the final decision of Nancy A. Berryhill, the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, finding her not disabled. (Docket 1). Defendant denies plaintiff is entitled to benefits. (Docket 17). The court issued a briefing schedule requiring the parties to file a joint statement of material facts (“JSMF”). (Docket 14). The parties filed their JSMF. (Docket 15). For the reasons stated below, plaintiff's motion to reverse the decision of the Commissioner (Docket 16) is denied.

         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         The parties' JSMF (Docket 15) is incorporated by reference. Further recitation of salient facts is incorporated in the discussion section of this order.

         On August 12, 2013, Ms. Clifford filed an application for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) under Title II. Id. ¶ 1. She subsequently filed for supplemental social security income (“SSI”) benefits under Title XVI. Id. In both applications, Ms. Clifford alleges an onset of disability date of January 15, 2013. Id. Her last insured date for DIB purposes was March 31, 2014. Id. On June 23, 2015, the ALJ issued a decision finding Ms. Clifford was not disabled. Id. ¶ 4; see also Administrative Record at pp. 14-25 (hereinafter “AR at p. __”). The Appeals Council denied Ms. Clifford's request for review and affirmed the ALJ's decision. (Docket 15 ¶ 10). The ALJ's decision constitutes the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. It is from this decision which Ms. Clifford timely appeals.

         The issue before the court is whether the ALJ's decision of June 23, 2015, that Ms. Clifford was not “under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from January 15, 2013, [through June 23, 2015]” is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. (AR at p. 25) (bold omitted); see also Howard v. Massanari, 255 F.3d 577, 580 (8th Cir. 2001) (“By statute, the findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive.”) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)).

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The Commissioner's findings must be upheld if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Choate v. Barnhart, 457 F.3d 865, 869 (8th Cir. 2006); Howard, 255 F.3d at 580. The court reviews the Commissioner's decision to determine if an error of law was committed. Smith v. Sullivan, 982 F.2d 308, 311 (8th Cir. 1992). “Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance, but is enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support the Commissioner's conclusion.” Cox v. Barnhart, 471 F.3d 902, 906 (8th Cir. 2006) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

         The review of a decision to deny benefits is “more than an examination of the record for the existence of substantial evidence in support of the Commissioner's decision . . . [the court must also] take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from that decision.” Reed v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 917, 920 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2001)).

         It is not the role of the court to re-weigh the evidence and, even if this court would decide the case differently, it cannot reverse the Commissioner's decision if that decision is supported by good reason and is based on substantial evidence. Guilliams v. Barnhart, 393 F.3d 798, 801 (8th Cir. 2005). A reviewing court may not reverse the Commissioner's decision “ ‘merely because substantial evidence would have supported an opposite decision.' ” Reed, 399 F.3d at 920 (quoting Shannon v. Chater, 54 F.3d 484, 486 (8th Cir. 1995)). Issues of law are reviewed de novo with deference given to the Commissioner's construction of the Social Security Act. See Smith, 982 F.2d at 311.

         The Social Security Administration established a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether an individual is disabled and entitled to DI benefits under Title II. 20 CFR § 404.1520(a). If the ALJ determines a claimant is not disabled at any step of the process, the evaluation does not proceed to the next step as the claimant is not disabled. Id. The five-step sequential evaluation process is:

(1) whether the claimant is presently engaged in a “substantial gainful activity”; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment-one that significantly limits the claimant's physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities; (3) whether the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals a presumptively disabling impairment listed in the regulations (if so, the claimant is disabled without regard to age, education, and work experience); (4) whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform . . . past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant cannot perform the past work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove there are other jobs in the national economy the claimant can perform.

Baker v. Apfel, 159 F.3d 1140, 1143-44 (8th Cir. 1998). The ALJ applied the five-step sequential evaluation required by the Social Security Administration regulations. (AR at pp. 18-19).

         STEP ONE

         At step one, the ALJ determined Ms. Clifford had “not [been] engaged in substantial gainful activity since January 15, 2013, the alleged onset date.” Id. at p. 18 (bold omitted).

         STEP TWO

         At step two, the ALJ must decide whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that is severe or a combination of impairments that are severe. 20 CFR § 404.1520(c). A medically determinable impairment can only be established by an acceptable medical source. 20 CFR § 404.1513(a). Accepted medical sources include, among others, licensed physicians. Id. “It is the claimant's burden to establish that [her] impairment or combination of impairments are severe.” Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 707 (8th Cir. 2007).

         The regulations describe “severe impairment” in the negative. “An impairment or combination of impairments is not severe if it does not significantly limit your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 CFR § 404.1521(a). An impairment is not severe, however, if it “amounts to only a slight abnormality that would not significantly limit the claimant's physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” Kirby, 500 F.3d at 707. Thus, a severe impairment is one which significantly limits a claimant's physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

         The ALJ identified Ms. Clifford suffered from the following severe impairment: “medial compartment degenerative change of the left knee, neuritis of the left leg, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), hypertension, and diverticulosis with acute episodes of diverticulitis . . . .” (Docket 15 ¶ 6). Ms. Clifford does not challenge this finding. (Dockets 16 & 18).

         STEP ...