United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Southern Division
ROSEANN A. KETCHMARK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiff Trevor Harrison
(“Plaintiff)'s appeal of the Commissioner of Social
Security (“Commissioner”)'s final decision
denying his application for Social Security insurance
benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act
(“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-434. The
decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
Court's review of the Commissioner's decision to deny
disability benefits is limited to determining if the decision
“complies with the relevant legal requirements and is
supported by substantial evidence in the record as a
whole.” Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 922, 929
(8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Ford v. Astrue, 518 F.3d
979, 981 (8th Cir. 2008)); see also 42 U.S.C. §
405(g). “Substantial evidence is less than a
preponderance of the evidence, but is ‘such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind would find adequate to support
the [Commissioner's] conclusion.'” Grable
v. Colvin, 770 F.3d 1196, 1201 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting
Davis v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 962, 966 (8th Cir. 2001)).
In determining whether existing evidence is substantial, the
Court takes into account evidence that both supports and
detracts from the Administrative Law Judge's
(“ALJ”) findings. Cline v. Colvin, 771
F.3d 1098, 1102 (8th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted).
“If the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial
evidence, [the Court] may not reverse even if substantial
evidence would support the opposite outcome or [the Court]
would have decided differently.” Smith v.
Colvin, 756 F.3d 621, 625 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting
Davis, 239 F.3d at 966). The Court does not re-weigh
the evidence presented to the ALJ. Guilliams v.
Barnhart, 393 F.3d 798, 801 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing
Baldwin v. Barnhart, 349 F.3d 549, 555 (8th Cir.
2003)). The Court should “defer heavily to the findings
and conclusions of the [Commissioner].” Hurd v.
Astrue, 621 F.3d 734, 738 (8th Cir. 2010) (citation
of overview, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff suffered from
the following severe impairments: major depressive disorder,
insomnia, post-traumatic stress disorder, degenerative disc
disease, degenerative joint disease, and rotator cuff strain.
The ALJ also determined that Plaintiff has non-severe
impairments, including obesity and alcohol abuse. However,
the ALJ found that none of Plaintiff's impairments,
whether considered alone or in combination, meet or medically
equals the criteria of one of the listed impairments in 20
CFR Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. Despite Plaintiff's
limitations, the ALJ found that Plaintiff retained the
residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform
light work with several exceptions and limitations. Though
the ALJ found Plaintiff incapable of performing any past
relevant work, there are jobs in significant numbers in the
national economy that Plaintiff can perform, such as
production assembler and swatch clerk. Therefore, Plaintiff
was not disabled as defined in the Act from February 25,
2015, through the date of the ALJ's decision.
appeal, Plaintiff alleges errors related to (1) whether the
ALJ's credibility assessment is supported by substantial
evidence from the record, and (2) whether the ALJ's RFC
assessment is supported by substantial evidence from the
carefully reviewed the record before the Court and the
parties' submissions on appeal, the Court concludes that
substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the
ALJ's decision for the reasons set forth in the
THEREFORE, ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is
 While the ALJ's assessment must be
supported by some medical evidence, it is not limited to
considering medical evidence exclusively. Cox v.
Astrue, 495 F.3d 614, 619 (8th Cir. 2007). The ALJ
considered Plaintiff's testimony, Plaintiff's medical
treatment records, and the consultative examiner's
report. Though Plaintiff argues the consultative
examiner's report does not support the RFC assessment, he
provides an incomplete account of the examiner's
findings. For example, Plaintiff highlights his low back pain
and stooped walking position but neglects the finding that he