Miller v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
JEFFREY MILLER 	PLAINTIFF
vs. 	Civil No. 6:24-cv-06019
MICHELLE KING, 	DEFENDANT
Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jeffrey Miller (“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.
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. 7. 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 applications on June 15, 2021. (Tr. 17).0F
1 In his applications,
Plaintiff alleges being disabled due to seizures, blindness in right eye, and left side paralysis. (Tr.
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. 8. 	These references are to the page number of the transcript itself not the ECF
page number.
Case 6:24-cv-06019-BAB Document 15 Filed 02/12/25 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
253). Plaintiff alleged an onset date of December 20, 2020. (Tr. 17). Plaintiff’s applications were
denied initially and again upon reconsideration. Id.
Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on his denied applications, and this hearing
request was granted. (Tr. 134-197). This hearing was held on January 17, 2023. (Tr. 33-74). At
this hearing, Plaintiff was present and represented by Sheri Arman. Id. Plaintiff and Vocational
Expert (“VE”), Evelyn Hartman testified at the hearing. Id.
Following the administrative hearing, on August 23, 2023, the ALJ entered an unfavorable
decision. (Tr. 17-26). In this decision, the ALJ determined Plaintiff met the insured status of the
Act through December 31, 2026. (Tr. 20, Finding 1). The ALJ also determined Plaintiff had not
engaged in substantial gainful activity (“SGA”) since December 20, 2020. (Tr. 20, Finding 2).
The ALJ then determined Plaintiff had severe impairments of seizures, residuals from a
stroke with left side hemiparesis, visual impairment, and knee arthritis. 	(Tr. 20, 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. 20, Finding 4).
The ALJ considered Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and determined his RFC. 	(Tr. 20-
24). 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 less than the full range of light work. Id.
The ALJ found Plaintiff could frequently finger and handle with his non-dominate upper
extremity; only occasionally button and pinch with his non-dominant upper extremity; only
occasionally climb stairs and kneel; must avoid working at unprotected heights or around moving
Case 6:24-cv-06019-BAB Document 15 Filed 02/12/25 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
or dangerous machinery; could not perform tasks requiring bilateral vision; and could not perform
tasks requiring overhead reaching with his non-dominant upper extremity. Id.
The ALJ then evaluated Plaintiff’s Past Relevant Work (“PRW”). (Tr. 24, Finding 6). The
ALJ determined Plaintiff could not perform any PRW. Id. However, the ALJ found there were
jobs in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform. (Tr. 25, Finding
10). With the help of the VE, the ALJ found Plaintiff could perform the representative occupations
of (1) housekeeper with approximately 177,185 jobs in the nation, (2) inspector/hand packager
with approximately 165,000 jobs in the nation, and (3) fast food worker with approximately
189,150 jobs in the nation. Id. Based upon this finding, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not been
disabled under the Act from December 20, 2020, through the date of the decision. (Tr. 26, Finding
11).
On February 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed the present appeal. ECF No. 1. Both Parties have
filed appeal briefs. ECF Nos. 12, 14. 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
Case 6:24-cv-06019-BAB Document 15 Filed 02/12/25 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
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
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
Case 6:24-cv-06019-BAB Document 15 Filed 02/12/25 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
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. 12. In making this claim, Plaintiff argues the ALJ
erred (1) in the evaluation of Plaintiff’s RFC and (2) in the evaluation of medical opinions. Id. In
response, Defendant argues the ALJ did not err in any of his findings. ECF No. 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 (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
Case 6:24-cv-06019-BAB Document 15 Filed 02/12/25 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
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
incorporating these findings will be entered pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52 and
58.
ENTERED this 12th day of February 2025.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:24-cv-06019-BAB Document 15 Filed 02/12/25 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>