Swinney v. Social Security Administration Commissioner et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
STEVEN D. SWINNEY 	PLAINTIFF
vs. 	Civil No. 4:24-cv-04008
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 	DEFENDANT
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Steven D. Swinney (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant to § 205(g) of Title II of the
Social Security Act (“The Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2010), seeking judicial review of a final
decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denying his
application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”)
under Titles II and XVI of the Act.
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) (2009), the Honorable Susan O.
Hickey referred this case to this Court for the purpose of making a report and recommendation. In
accordance with that referral, and after reviewing the arguments in this case, this Court recommends
Plaintiff’s case be AFFIRMED.
1. 	Background:
Plaintiff filed his disability applications on May 3, 2021. 	(Tr. 121).0F
1 	In his applications,
Plaintiff alleges being disabled due to Crohn’s disease and shortened intestine syndrome. (Tr. 310).
Plaintiff alleged an onset date of April 24, 2021. 	(Tr. 121). 	Plaintiff’s applications were denied
initially and again upon reconsideration. Id.
1 The docket numbers for this case are referenced by the designation “ECF No. ___.” The transcript pages
for this case are referenced by the designation “Tr.” and refer to the document filed at ECF No. 9. 	These
references are to the page number of the transcript itself not the ECF page number.
Case 4:24-cv-04008-SOH Document 14 Filed 01/02/25 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on his denied applications, and this hearing
request was granted. (Tr. 236-277). This hearing was held on October 3, 2023. (Tr. 134-166). At
this hearing, Plaintiff was present, and represented by Daniel Webb. Id. Plaintiff and Vocational
Expert (“VE”) Jerold Hildre testified at the hearings. Id.
The ALJ entered an unfavorable decision on February 22, 2023. 	(Tr. 121-129). 	In this
decision, the ALJ determined the Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Act through
December 31, 2025. (Tr. 124, Finding 1). The ALJ also determined Plaintiff had not engaged in
substantial gainful activity (“SGA”) since April 24, 2021. (Tr. 124, Finding 2).
The ALJ then determined Plaintiff had severe impairments of Crohn’s disease and obesity.
(Tr. 124, Finding 3). Despite being severe, the ALJ determined those impairments did not meet or
medically equal the requirements of any of the Listings of Impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart
P, Appendix 1 (“Listings”). (Tr. 124, Finding 4).
The ALJ considered Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and determined his RFC. 	(Tr. 125-
128). The ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and found the claimed limitations were
not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record. Id. The ALJ
also determined Plaintiff retained the RFC to perform light work, except can occasionally climb
ramps and stairs; is unable to climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; can occasionally balance, stoop,
kneel, crouch, and crawl; and requires indoor work, with access to a bathroom facility. Id.
The ALJ then evaluated Plaintiff’s Past Relevant Work (“PRW”). (Tr. 128, Finding 6). The
ALJ determined Plaintiff was capable of performing his PRW. 	Id. 	Based upon this finding, the
ALJ determined Plaintiff had not been disabled under the Act from April 24, 2021, through the date
of the decision. (Tr. 129, Finding 7).
On January 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed the present appeal. ECF No. 1. Both Parties have filed
appeal briefs. ECF Nos. 11, 13. This case is now ready for decision.
Case 4:24-cv-04008-SOH Document 14 Filed 01/02/25 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
2. 	Applicable Law:
In reviewing this case, the Court is required to determine whether the Commissioner’s
findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
(2010); Ramirez v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 576, 583 (8th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence is less than a
preponderance of the evidence, but it is enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to
support the Commissioner’s decision. See Johnson v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1145, 1147 (8th Cir. 2001).
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. See
Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2001). 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. See Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065,
1068 (8th Cir. 2000).
It is well-established that a claimant for Social Security disability benefits has the burden of
proving his or her disability by establishing a physical or mental disability that lasted at least one
year and that prevents him or her from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. See Cox v. Apfel,
160 F.3d 1203, 1206 (8th Cir. 1998); 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act defines
a “physical or mental impairment” as “an impairment that results from anatomical, physiological,
or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and
laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(3), 1382(3)(c). A plaintiff must show that
his or her disability, not simply his or her impairment, has lasted for at least twelve consecutive
months. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A).
To determine whether the adult claimant suffers from a disability, the Commissioner uses
the familiar five-step sequential evaluation. He determines: (1) whether the claimant is presently
Case 4:24-cv-04008-SOH Document 14 Filed 01/02/25 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
engaged in a “substantial gainful activity”; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment 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 (RFC) to perform his or
her past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant cannot perform the past work, the burden shifts to the
Commissioner to prove that there are other jobs in the national economy that the claimant can
perform. See Cox, 160 F.3d at 1206; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)-(f). The fact finder only considers
the plaintiff’s age, education, and work experience in light of his or her RFC if the final stage of this
analysis is reached. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (2003).
3. 	Discussion:
In his appeal brief, Plaintiff claims the ALJ’s disability decision is not supported by
substantial evidence in the record. ECF No. 11. In making this claim, Plaintiff claims the ALJ erred
in the RFC determination. Id.
In this matter, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the RFC to perform light work with
postural and environmental restrictions. (Tr. 125, Finding 4). Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred in this
RFC determination. 	ECF No. 11, Pgs. 8-12. 	However, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s
RFC determination.
Prior to Step Four of the sequential analysis in a disability determination, the ALJ is required
to determine a claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). This RFC determination must
be based on medical evidence that addresses the claimant’s ability to function in the workplace. See
Stormo v. Barnhart, 377 F.3d 801, 807 (8th Cir. 2004). The ALJ should consider “‘all the evidence
in the record’ in determining the RFC, including ‘the medical records, observations of treating
physicians and others, and an individual’s own description of his limitations.’” Stormo v. Barnhart,
Case 4:24-cv-04008-SOH Document 14 Filed 01/02/25 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
377 F.3d 801, 807 (8th Cir. 2004) (quoting Krogmeier v. Barnhart, 294 F.3d 1019 (8th Cir. 2002)).
The Plaintiff has the burden of producing documents and evidence to support his or her claimed
RFC. 	See Cox, 160 F.3d at1206; 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). 	The mere fact a
claimant has a long list of medical conditions does not demonstrate that person is disabled; instead,
the RFC determination is a function-by-function analysis. See SSR 96-8P, 1996 WL 374184 (July
2, 1996). 	“The RFC assessment considers only functional limitations and restrictions that result
from an individual’s medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments, including
the impact of any related symptoms.” Id.
The ALJ, however, bears the primary responsibility for making the RFC determination and
for ensuring there is “some medical evidence” regarding the claimant’s “ability to function in the
workplace” that supports the RFC determination. Lauer v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 700, 703-04 (8th Cir.
2001). 	Furthermore, this Court is required to affirm the ALJ’s RFC determination if that
determination is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See McKinney v. Apfel,
228 F.3d 860, 862 (8th Cir. 2000).
Based upon this standard and a review of Plaintiff’s records and allegations in this case, the
Court cannot find Plaintiff has demonstrated having any greater limitations than those found by the
ALJ. 	The ALJ provided a thorough summary of Plaintiff’s medical records and subjective
complaints in this matter. 	The mere fact Plaintiff suffers from several impairments does not
demonstrate he has more limitations than those found in the RFC assessment above.
In his opinion, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s alleged impairments and discounted those he
found were not credible. (Tr. 125-128). The ALJ considered the results of objective diagnostic tests
and examination findings and discussed these in his decision. 	Id. 	The ALJ also considered the
findings of medical consultants and considered Plaintiff’s testimony and function reports in
assessing his RFC. Id.
Case 4:24-cv-04008-SOH Document 14 Filed 01/02/25 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC determination. 	Plaintiff has the burden of
establishing his claimed RFC. 	See Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 790 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting
Eichelberger v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 584, 590 (8th Cir. 2004)). Because Plaintiff has not met this
burden in this case and because the ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by sufficient medical
evidence, this Court finds the ALJ’s RFC determination should be affirmed.
4. 	Conclusion:
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that the decision of the ALJ, denying benefits
to Plaintiff, is supported by substantial evidence and recommends it be AFFIRMED.
The Parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation
in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 	The Parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990).
ENTERED this 2nd day of January 2025.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:24-cv-04008-SOH Document 14 Filed 01/02/25 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>