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 Kenneth Soest's (“Soest”) application
for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the
Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401, et seq.
For the reasons set forth below, the decision of the
Commissioner will be affirmed.
filed his disability application on October 3, 2011, alleging
disability beginning on November 1, 2010. He claimed that the
following conditions limited his ability to work: a knee
replacement; a bad disc in his back; a sleep disorder;
anxiety; and a hand “singe” (Tr.
225). Soest stopped working as a carpenter in
October 2010 after losing his job (Tr. 226). Soest's
application was initially denied on June 10, 2013 (Tr. 102),
which he appealed. On July 10, 2014, the Appeals Council
remanded the case to the administrative law judge
(“ALJ”) in order to discuss and accord weight to
the opinions of Soest's treating doctor, Hziz Doumit,
M.D. regarding Soest's physical limitations (Tr. 97-98).
On December 3, 2014, the ALJ again found that Soest was not
disabled (Tr. 5-22). Soest appealed this decision, which was
denied by the Appeals Council (Tr. 23-27). Thus, the most
recent decision of the ALJ stands as the final decision of
the Commissioner. See Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103,
Court adopts Soest's unopposed recitations of the medical
record relevant to this case, as set forth in his Medical
Evidence on Record (Doc. 17 at 3-10),  along with
Defendant's Statement of Additional Material Facts (Doc.
24-2). Together, these facts present a fair and accurate
summary of the record, including the testimony at the
evidentiary hearings. 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 ...