United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CRITES-LEONI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Jesse Gamble brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
405(g), seeking judicial review of the Social Security
Administration Commissioner's denial of his applications
for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under
Title II of the Social Security Act and Supplemental Security
Income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Act.
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) found that,
despite Gamble's severe 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.
following reasons, the matter is reversed and remanded for
filed his applications for DIB and SSI on January 17, 2013,
and January 25, 2013, respectively. (Tr. 119-28.) He alleged
that he became disabled on June 15, 2010, due to a
combination of mental impairments and back problems. (Tr.
193-94.) Gamble's claims were denied initially. (Tr.
63-69.) Following an administrative hearing, Gamble's
claims were denied in a written opinion by an ALJ, dated May
30, 2014. (Tr. 12-21.) Gamble 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
September 15, 2015. (Tr. 8, 1-5.) Thus, the decision of the
ALJ stands as the final decision of the Commissioner.
See 20 C.F.R. '' 404.981, 416.1481.
instant action, Gamble argues that the ALJ erred by failing
to find that Gamble met or equaled Listing 12.05C.
The ALJ's Determination
stated that Gamble met the insured status requirements of the
Social Security Act through June 30, 2014. (Tr. 14.) The ALJ
found that Gamble had not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since his alleged onset date of June 15, 2010.
addition, the ALJ concluded that Gamble had the following
severe impairments: degenerative disc disease and learning
disorder. Id. The ALJ found that Gamble did not have
an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or
equals in severity the requirements of any impairment listed
in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. Id. In
making this determination, the ALJ considered Gamble's
mental impairment under the requirements of Listing 12.05,
but found that the requirements were not met.
Gamble'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 light work as defined in 20
CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b). The claimant can lift and
carry 10 pounds frequently and 20 pounds occasionally. He is
able to walk or stand for 6 hours in an 8-hour day and sit
for up to 6 hours in an 8-hour day. The claimant can
occasionally climb ramps and stairs but can never climb
ladders, ropes or scaffolds. The claimant can occasionally
stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl. The claimant should avoid
exposure to extreme heat, unprotected heights, excessive
vibrations and hazardous machinery. The claimant is limited
to simple tasks that require no more than remedial reading or
math. In addition, the claimant should not be required to
perform what would be considered high production rate job,
although low and medium production rate jobs would be
found that Gamble's allegations regarding his limitations
were not entirely credible. (Tr. 18.)
further found that Gamble is unable to perform any past
relevant work. (Tr. 19.) The ALJ noted that a vocational
expert testified that Gamble could perform jobs existing in
significant numbers in the national economy, such as patching
machine operator, linking machine operator, and garment
bagger. (Tr. 20.) The ALJ therefore concluded that Gamble has
not been under a disability, as defined in the Social
Security Act, from June 15, 2010, through the date of the
ALJ's final decision reads as follows:
Based on the application for a period of disability and
disability insurance benefits protectively filed on January
17, 2013, the claimant is not disabled as defined in sections
216(i) and 223(d) of the Social Security Act.
Based on the application for supplemental security income
protectively field on January 25, 2013, the claimant is not
disabled under section 1614(a)(3)(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 marks and citation omitted).
“Substantial evidence on the record as a whole . . .
requires a more scrutinizing analysis.” Id.
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
determine whether the Commissioner's decision is
supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole,
the Court must review the entire administrative record and
1. The credibility findings made by ...