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 Amy Miller's (“Miller”) application
for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the
Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401, et seq.
and supplemental security income benefits under Title XVI of
the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381, et
applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental
security income benefits on April 23, 2013, alleging
disability as of September 20, 2012 resulting from an injury
to her left wrist and lumbar spinal pain. After her
application was denied at the initial administrative level,
she requested a hearing before an administrative law judge
(“ALJ”). Following a hearing on January 26, 2015,
the ALJ issued a written decision on April 29, 2015, denying
her application. Miller's request for review by the
Appeals Council was denied. 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 Miller's Statement of Material Facts (Doc.
No. 24) and Defendant's Statement of Additional Material
Facts (Doc. No. 29-2). 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