United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROSS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
an action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review
of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision
denying Timothy Swain's (“Swain”) application
for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the
Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401, et seq.
filed an application for disability insurance benefits on
March 23, 2011, alleging disability as of April 10, 2010, as
a result of injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident.
After his application was denied at the initial
administrative level, he requested a hearing before an
administrative law judge (“ALJ”). Following a
hearing on November 29, 2012, the ALJ issued a written
decision on January 14, 2013, denying his application.
Swain's request for review by the Appeals Council was
granted and the case was remanded on January 9, 2014. The
Appeals Council generally directed that further consideration
be given to Swain's maximum residual functional capacity
(“RFC”), and in doing so, that treating medical
source opinion be evaluated and an explanation be made for
the weight given to that opinion evidence; vocational expert
evidence was directed as needed (Tr. 15). A second hearing
was held on June 16, 2014. On August 14, 2014, the ALJ found
Swain had the RFC to perform certain jobs that exist in
significant numbers in the national economy, and was thus not
disabled under the Act. Swain filed a request for review by
the Appeals Council on September 15, 2014. The Appeal Council
denied the request on January 14, 2016. Thus, the decision of
the ALJ stands as the final decision of the Commissioner.
See Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 107 (2000).
Court adopts Swain's Statement of Facts (Doc. No. 13-1)
and Defendant's Statement of Additional Facts (Doc. No.
18-2). The Court's review of the record shows that the
adopted facts are accurate and complete. Specific facts will
be discussed as part of the analysis.
court's role on judicial review is to determine whether
the ALJ's findings are supported by substantial evidence
in the record as a whole. Johnson v. Astrue, 628
F.3d 991, 992 (8th Cir. 2009). “Substantial evidence is
that which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.” Id. (citations
omitted). The court may not reverse merely because
substantial evidence exists in the record that would support
a contrary outcome or because the court would have decided
the case differently. See Krogmeier v. Barnhart, 294
F.3d 1019, 1022 (8th Cir. 2002).
determine whether the ALJ's final decision is supported
by substantial evidence, the Court is required to review the
administrative record as a whole and to consider:
(1) The findings of credibility made by the ALJ;
(2) The education, background, work history, and age of the
(3) The medical evidence given by the claimant's treating
(4) The subjective complaints of pain and description of the
claimant's physical activity and impairment;
(5) The corroboration by third parties of the claimant's
(6) The testimony of vocational experts based upon prior
hypothetical questions which fairly set forth the