United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CRITES-LEONI, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Michael James Glaser brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g), seeking judicial review of the Social Security
Administration Commissioner's denial of his application
for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under
Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Glaser alleged that he
was disabled because of schizoaffective disorder, depression,
and hearing loss. (Tr. 199.)
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that, despite
Glaser's multiple severe mental impairments, he was not
disabled as he had the residual functional capacity
(“RFC”) to perform jobs that exist in significant
numbers in the national economy.
matter is pending before the undersigned United States
Magistrate Judge, with consent of the parties, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c). A summary of the entire record is
presented in the parties' briefs and is repeated here
only to the extent necessary.
filed an application for SSI on June 15, 2012, claiming that
he became unable to work due to his disabling condition on
December 25, 2008. (Tr. 124.) Glaser's claim was denied
initially. (Tr. 42-57.) Following an administrative hearing,
Glaser's claim was denied in a written opinion by an ALJ,
dated February 26, 2012. (Tr. 9-20.) Glaser then filed a
request for review of the ALJ's decision with the Appeals
Council of the Social Security Administration (SSA), which
was denied on April 27, 2015. (Tr. 4, 1-3.) Thus, the
decision of the ALJ stands as the final decision of the
Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.981,
instant action, Glaser first claims that the “findings
of residual functional capacity do not find support in some
evidence as required under the standards contained in
Singh and Lauer.” (Doc. 15 at 6.)
Glaser next argues that the “hypothetical question to
the vocational expert does not capture the concrete
consequences of Plaintiff's impairment, and therefore,
the response of the vocational expert does not represent
substantial evidence.” Id. at 17.
The ALJ's Determination
found that Glaser has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since June 15, 2012, the application date. (Tr. 11.)
addition, the ALJ concluded that Glaser had the following
severe impairments: recurrent major depression and an anxiety
disorder. Id. The ALJ found that Glaser did not have
an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or
medically equals the severity of one of the listed
Glaser's RFC, the ALJ stated:
After careful consideration of the entire record, the
undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual
functional capacity to perform a full range of work at all
exertional levels but with the following nonexertional
limitations: he is able to understand, remember, and carry
out at least simple instructions and non-detailed tasks and
he can respond appropriately to supervisors and coworkers in
a task oriented setting where contact with others is casual
and infrequent. The claimant should not work in a setting
which includes constant/regular contact with the general
public and should not perform work which includes more than
infrequent handling of customer complaints. He has limited
found that Glaser's allegations regarding his limitations
were not credible. (Tr. 14.) In determining Glaser's RFC,
the ALJ indicated that he was assigning “considerable
weight” to the opinion of consultative psychiatrist
Georgia Jones, M.D. (Tr. 17.) He indicated that he was
assigning less weight to the opinion of consultative
psychiatrist Aqeeb Ahmad, M.D., as his opinion appeared to be
based on Glaser's subjective complaints. Id.
further found that Glaser has no past relevant work. (Tr.
18.) The ALJ noted that a vocational expert testified that
Glaser could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in
the national economy, such as warehouse worker and packer of
agricultural goods. (Tr. 19.) The ALJ therefore concluded
that Glaser has not been under a disability, as defined in
the Social Security Act, since June 15, 2012, the date the
application was filed. Id.
ALJ's final decision reads as follows:
Based on the application for supplemental security income
filed on June 15, 2012, the claimant is not disabled under
section 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act.
A. Standard of Review
decision of the Commissioner must be affirmed if it is
supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Richardson v. Perales, 402
U.S. 389, 401 (1971); Estes v. Barnhart, 275 F.3d
722, 724 (8th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence is less than a
preponderance of the evidence, but enough that a reasonable
person would find it adequate to support the conclusion.
Johnson v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1145, 1147 (8th Cir.
2001). This “substantial evidence test, ”
however, is “more than a mere search of the record for
evidence supporting the Commissioner's findings.”
Coleman v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 767, 770 (8th Cir. 2007)
(internal quotation ...