United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division
PAUL A. KAHN, Plaintiff,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; Defendant.
ROSEANN A. KETCHMARK, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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.
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
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.
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;(2) the ALJ's RFC is
unsupported by his assessment of Plaintiff's
obesity; (3) the ALJ's RFC is unsupported by
medical opinion evidence; (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.
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
therefore ORDERED that the decision of the
Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
 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).
 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