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.

Overy v. Berryhill

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

March 27, 2019

HOLLY M. OVERY, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Deputy Commissioner of Operations, Social Security Administration, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM

          ABBIE CRITES-LEONI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Holly M. Overy brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the Social Security Administration Commissioner's denial of her application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Act.

         An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) found that, despite Overy's severe impairments, she was not disabled as she had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

         This matter is pending before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge, with consent of the parties, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). A summary of the entire record is presented in the parties' briefs and is repeated here only to the extent necessary.

         For the following reasons, the decision of the Commissioner will be affirmed.

         I. Procedural History

         Overy filed her applications for benefits on September 10, 2014, claiming that she became unable to work on August 1, 2014. (Tr. 198-99.) In her Disability Report, Overy alleged disability due to depression, anxiety, fibromyalgia, and possible Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome.[1] (Tr. 297.) Overy was 33 years of age at the time of her alleged onset of disability. Her applications were denied initially. (Tr. 103-13, 115-19.) Following two administrative hearings, Overy's claims were denied in a written opinion by an ALJ, dated March 29, 2017. (Tr. 10-19.) Overy then filed a request for review of the ALJ's decision with the Appeals Council, which was denied on December 12, 2017. (Tr. 1-4.) Thus, the decision of the ALJ stands as the final decision of the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.981, 416.1481.

         In this action, Overy raises the following claims: (1) “The residual functional capacity (RFC) assessment supports a fully favorable decision”; (2) “The ALJ failed to properly evaluate the remainder of Plaintiff's RFC”; (3) “The ALJ failed to fully and fairly develop the record”; and (4) “The ALJ failed to consider a closed period of disability.” (Doc. 14 at 3.)

         II. The ALJ's Determination

         The ALJ first found that Overy meets the insured status requirements of the Act through September 30, 2020. (Tr. 12.) She had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since August 1, 2014, the alleged onset date. Id. In addition, the ALJ concluded that Overy had the following severe impairments: depression, anxiety, obesity, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, osteoarthritis, and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome/status post carpal tunnel release. (Tr. 13.) The ALJ found that Overy did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments. Id.

         As to Overy's RFC, the ALJ stated:

After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except the claimant can lift, carry, push or pull 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. She can sit, stand, or walk for 6 hours total in an eight-hour workday. She can never operate foot controls with the right foot or left foot. She can operate hand controls with the bilateral hands frequently. She can handle items and use her fingers for manipulation with the bilateral hands frequently. The claimant can climb ramps and stairs occasionally but never climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds. She can balance, stoop, and crouch occasionally. She can never kneel or crawl. The claimant can never work at unprotected heights or with moving, mechanical parts. She can never operate a motor vehicle and never be exposed to whole body vibration. The claimant is limited to performing simple, routine tasks and making simple work-related decisions. She can never ambulate on unimproved terrain.

(Tr. 14-15.)

         The ALJ found that Overy was unable to perform any past relevant work, but was capable of performing other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy, such as cafeteria attendant, cashier, and mail clerk. (Tr. 17-18.) The ALJ therefore concluded that Overy was not under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from August 1, 2014, through the date of the decision. (Tr. 19.)

         The ALJ's final decision reads as follows:

Based on the application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits filed on September 10, 2014, the claimant is not disabled under sections 216(i) and 223(d) of the Social Security Act.
Based on the application for supplemental security income filed on March 8, 2016, the claimant is not disabled under section 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act.

Id.

         III. Applicable Law

         III.A. Standard of Review

         The decision of the Commissioner must be affirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); Estes v. Barnhart, 275 F.3d 722, 724 (8th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance of the evidence, but enough that a reasonable person would find it adequate to support the conclusion. Johnson v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1145, 1147 (8th Cir. 2001). This “substantial evidence test, ” however, is “more than a mere search of the record for evidence supporting the Commissioner's findings.” Coleman v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 767, 770 (8th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Substantial evidence on the record as a whole . . . requires a more scrutinizing analysis.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

         To determine whether the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, the Court must review the entire administrative record and consider:

1. The credibility findings made by ...

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.