Sturman v. Social Security Administration Commissioner et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
JAMES STURMAN 	PLAINTIFF
vs. 	Civil No. 6:24-cv-06071
LELAND DUDEK, 	DEFENDANT
Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration
MEMORANDUM OPINION
James Sturman (“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 June 23, 2021. 	(Tr. 14).0F
1 	In his application,
Plaintiff alleges being disabled due to arthritis. (Tr. 205). Plaintiff alleged an onset date of May 20,
2021. (Tr. 14). 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 6:24-cv-06071-BAB Document 14 Filed 05/07/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on his denied application, and this hearing
request was granted. (Tr. 87-168). This hearing was held on April 4, 2023. (Tr. 35-55). At this
hearing, Plaintiff was present, and represented by Shannon Carroll. 	Id. 	Plaintiff and Vocational
Expert (“VE”), Wilfred Roux testified at the hearing. Id.
Following the administrative hearing, on August 2, 2023, the ALJ entered an unfavorable
decision. (Tr. 14-25). In this decision, the ALJ determined Plaintiff met the insured status of the
Act through December 31, 2026. (Tr. 17, Finding 1). The ALJ also determined Plaintiff had not
engaged in substantial gainful activity (“SGA”) since May 20, 2021. (Tr. 17, Finding 2).
The ALJ then determined Plaintiff had severe impairments of degenerative joint disease,
neuropathy, obesity, degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, gout, and anxiety. 	(Tr. 17,
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. 18, Finding 4).
The ALJ considered Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and determined his RFC. (Tr. 19-23).
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 sedentary work except he could occasionally
stoop, crouch, kneel, and crawl; limited to work that is simple, routine, and repetitive tasks involving
one or two-steps with the ability to make simple, work-related decisions; and has the ability to adjust
to simple or routine changes where such changes are few and infrequent. Id.
The ALJ then evaluated Plaintiff’s Past Relevant Work (“PRW”). (Tr. 23, Finding 6). The
ALJ determined Plaintiff could not perform his PRW. Id. However, the ALJ found there were jobs
in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform. (Tr. 24, Finding 10).
With the help of the VE, the ALJ found Plaintiff could perform the representative occupations of
Case 6:24-cv-06071-BAB Document 14 Filed 05/07/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
(1) addresser clerk with approximately 81,000 jobs in the nation, (2) charge account clerk with
approximately 192,000 jobs in the nation, and (3) telephone account clerk with approximately
192,000 jobs in the nation. Id. Based upon this finding, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not been
disabled under the Act from May 20, 2021, through the date of the decision. (Tr. 25, Finding 11).
On May 21, 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 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,
Case 6:24-cv-06071-BAB Document 14 Filed 05/07/25 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
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) in the RFC determination, (2) in evaluating his subjective complaints of pain and (3) in failing
to conduct a consultative exam. 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.
Case 6:24-cv-06071-BAB Document 14 Filed 05/07/25 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
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 incorporating
these findings will be entered pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52 and 58.
ENTERED this 7th day of May 2025.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:24-cv-06071-BAB Document 14 Filed 05/07/25 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>