Burke v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HARRISON DIVISION
JARED J. BURKE 	PLAINTIFF
vs. 	Civil No. 3:24-cv-03021
LELAND DUDEK, 	DEFENDANT
Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jared J. Burke (“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”) under Title II of the Act.
The Parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge to conduct any and all
proceedings in this case, including conducting the trial, ordering the entry of a final judgment, and
conducting all post-judgment proceedings. ECF No. 5. Pursuant to this authority, the Court issues
this memorandum opinion and orders the entry of a final judgment in this matter.
1. 	Background:
Plaintiff filed his disability application on January 28, 2021. (Tr. 13).0F
1 In his application,
Plaintiff alleges being disabled due to extreme anxiety, chronic depression, bipolar disorder, and
being suicidal. (Tr. 246). Plaintiff alleged an onset date of June 30, 2020. (Tr. 13). Plaintiff’s
application was 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. 7. 	These references are to the page number of the transcript itself not the ECF
page number.
Case 3:24-cv-03021-BAB Document 14 Filed 04/30/25 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on his denied application, and this hearing
request was granted. (Tr. 106-166). This hearing was held on December 5, 2022. (Tr. 34-59). At
this hearing, Plaintiff was present, and represented by Frederick Spencer. Id. Plaintiff testified at
the hearing. 	Id. 	Vocational Expert (“VE”), Larry Seifert provided vocational interrogatory
answers. (Tr. 422-425).
Following the administrative hearing, on July 13, 2023, the ALJ entered an unfavorable
decision. (Tr. 13-28). In this decision, the ALJ determined Plaintiff met the insured status of the
Act through March 31, 2025. 	(Tr. 15, Finding 1). 	The ALJ also determined Plaintiff had not
engaged in substantial gainful activity (“SGA”) since June 30, 2020. (Tr. 16, Finding 2).
The ALJ then determined Plaintiff had severe impairments of asthma, obesity, depression,
and anxiety. (Tr. 16, 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. 16, Finding 4).
The ALJ considered Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and determined his RFC. 	(Tr. 18-
27). 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 should avoid concentrated
exposure to pulmonary irritants like fumes, dust, odors and gases, temperature extremes and
humidity; limited to simple tasks and can respond to supervision that is simple, direct and concrete,
and can occasionally interact with supervisors, coworkers and the public. Id.
The ALJ then evaluated Plaintiff’s Past Relevant Work (“PRW”). (Tr. 27, Finding 6). The
ALJ determined Plaintiff had no PRW. Id. However, the ALJ found there were jobs in significant
numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform. (Tr. 27, Finding 10). With the help
Case 3:24-cv-03021-BAB Document 14 Filed 04/30/25 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
of the VE, the ALJ found Plaintiff could perform the representative occupations of (1) merchandise
marker with approximately 125,000 jobs in the nation, (2) collator operator with approximately
47,000 jobs in the nation, and (3) sorter with approximately 45,000 jobs in the nation. Id. Based
upon this finding, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not been disabled under the Act from June 30,
2020, through the date of the decision. (Tr. 28, Finding 11).
On April 25, 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.
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
Case 3:24-cv-03021-BAB Document 14 Filed 04/30/25 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
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
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 argues the ALJ
erred (1) by failing to properly evaluate Plaintiff’s severe impairments, (2) by failing to evaluate
the combined effects of Plaintiff’s impairments, (3) in the RFC determination, and (4) in the
Case 3:24-cv-03021-BAB Document 14 Filed 04/30/25 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
evaluation of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. Id. In response, Defendant argues the ALJ did not
err in any of his findings. ECF No. 13.
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
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).
The Court has reviewed the entire transcript and the parties’ briefs. For the reasons stated
in the ALJ’s well-reasoned opinion and in the Government’s brief, the Court finds Plaintiff’s
arguments on appeal to be without merit and finds 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, 364 Fed.
Appx. 307 (8th Cir. 2010) (district court summarily affirmed the ALJ).
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 should be affirmed. 	A judgment
Case 3:24-cv-03021-BAB Document 14 Filed 04/30/25 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
incorporating these findings will be entered pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52 and
58.
ENTERED this 30th day of April 2025.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:24-cv-03021-BAB Document 14 Filed 04/30/25 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>