United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern 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 Christopher Glenn Barnes's (“Barnes”)
applications for disability insurance benefits under Title II
of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401,
et seq. and supplemental security income
(“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1381, et seq.
15, 2015, Barnes protectively filed applications for
disability insurance benefits and SSI benefits, alleging a
disability onset date of March 31, 2015 due to acquired
immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). After his applications
were denied at the initial administrative level, Barnes
requested a hearing before an administrative law judge
(“ALJ”). Following a hearing on March 15, 2015,
the ALJ issued a written decision on March 28, 2016, denying
his applications. Barnes' 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 Barnes' Statement of Facts (Doc. No. 15-1)
and Defendant's Statement of Additional Facts (Doc. No.
20-2). 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