Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Khan v. Berryhill

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division

September 12, 2017

PAUL A. KAHN, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; Defendant.

          ORDER

          ROSEANN A. KETCHMARK, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

         Before the Court is Plaintiff Paul Kahn's appeal of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”)'s denying his application for period of disability and disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act (“Act”). After careful review, the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.

         Standard of Review

         The Court's review of the Commissioner's decision 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 (“ALJ”)'s 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 omitted).

         Discussion

         By way of overview, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff suffers from the following severe impairments: obesity, degenerative disc disease in the lumbar spine, with radicular pain in the right leg, and status post fracture of the femur. The ALJ also determined that Plaintiff has non-severe impairments, including status post lateral epicondylitis surgery, anxiety, and depression. 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. Considering Plaintiff's impairments, the ALJ found that Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform light work with additional postural and environmental limitations. Based on this RFC, the ALJ found Plaintiff capable of performing his past relevant work as an assistant manager. Therefore, Plaintiff was not disabled as defined in the Act from May 1, 2013, through the date of the ALJ's decision.

         On appeal, Plaintiff challenges the ALJ's decision on the following six grounds: (1) the ALJ's RFC is legally flawed in that the ALJ failed to assess it on a function-by-function basis;[1](2) the ALJ's RFC is unsupported by his assessment of Plaintiff's obesity;[2] (3) the ALJ's RFC is unsupported by medical opinion evidence;[3] (4) the ALJ's RFC is unsupported by his own findings that Plaintiff has mild difficulties maintaining concentration, persistence, or pace; (5) the ALJ's RFC is unsupported as to the Plaintiff's mental impairments; and (6) the ALJ's step four determination is unsupported by substantial evidence of the record as a whole.

         Conclusion

         Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' submissions, for the reasons set forth above as well as in the Commissioner's brief, the Court concludes that substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the ALJ's decision.

         It is therefore ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.

---------

Notes:

[1] An ALJ who specifically addresses the functional areas in which he found a limitation and is silent as to those areas in which no limitation is found is believed to have implicitly found no limitation in the latter. Brown v. Astrue, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20576, *69 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 17, 2010) (citing Depover v. Barnhart, 349 F.3d 563, 567 (8th Cir. 2003).

[2] In his decision, the ALJ sufficiently considered Plaintiff's obesity in numerous references. See e.g., Baker v. Colvin, 620 Fed. App'x 550, 557 (8th Cir. 2015). The ALJ found that Plaintiff's obesity was a severe impairment under Step Two, found that Plaintiff's obesity did not qualify as a listed impairment under Step Three, and considered the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.