Robinson v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
TOMMY ROBINSON 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	CIVIL NO. 24-2104
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,1 Acting Commissioner
Social Security Administration 	DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Tommy Robinson, 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 a period of disability and disability insurance benefits
(DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI) benefits 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 protectively filed his current applications for DIB and SSI on June 8, 2021,
alleging an inability to work since August 27, 2020, due to problems with the back and hip,
depression, and anxiety. (Tr. 96, 232, 234). For DIB purposes, Plaintiff maintained insured status
though December 31, 2020. (Tr. 13, 241). An administrative telephonic hearing was held on
August 10, 2023, at which Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified. (Tr. 33-62).
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.
Case 2:24-cv-02104-CDC Document 13 Filed 01/15/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
By written decision dated November 9, 2023, the ALJ found that during the relevant time
period, Plaintiff had an impairment or combination of impairments that were severe. (Tr. 15).
Specifically, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: a lumbar disk bulge
and protrusion, mild asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), bipolar disorder,
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and anxiety. However, after reviewing all of the evidence
presented, the ALJ determined that 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. 16). The ALJ found Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (RFC)
to:
[P]erform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567)b) and 416.967(b) except that
he cannot climb ladders, ropes, and scaffolds or work near unprotected heights. He
can occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, and climb ramps and stairs. He cannot
drive motor vehicles or be exposed to vibrations. The claimant cannot have
concentrated exposure to dust, fumes, or other pulmonary irritants or have
concentrated exposure to extreme heat or humidity. In addition, the claimant can
have routine and superficial contact with coworkers but no contact with the general
public, except for incidental contact.
(Tr. 17-18). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ determined Plaintiff could perform work
as a small product assembler, a merchandise marker, and a routing clerk. (Tr. 25).
Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council, who
denied that request on June 26, 2024. (Tr. 1-5). 	Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this action. 	(ECF
No. 2). This case is before the undersigned pursuant to the consent of the parties. (ECF No. 4).
Both parties have filed appeal briefs, and the case is now ready for decision. (ECF Nos. 10, 12).
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.
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
Case 2:24-cv-02104-CDC Document 13 Filed 01/15/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
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).
In his appeal brief, Plaintiff claims the ALJ’s disability decision is not supported by
substantial evidence in the record. In making this claim, Plaintiff argues the following issue on
appeal: 1) The RFC is inconsistent with the evidence; and 2) Improper Step-Five Findings. (ECF
No. 10). Defendant argues the ALJ properly considered all the evidence, and that the decision is
supported by substantial evidence. (ECF No. 12).
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 light work with limitations, the ALJ considered the medical assessments of the
treating medical providers and examining and 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, the Court finds Plaintiff failed to meet his burden
of showing a more restrictive RFC. 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
Case 2:24-cv-02104-CDC Document 13 Filed 01/15/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
impairments did not preclude him from performing work as a small product assembler, a
merchandise marker, and a routing clerk. 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
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 15th day of January 2025.
/s/_________________________________
CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:24-cv-02104-CDC Document 13 Filed 01/15/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>