United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
CRITES-LEONI, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Kendall Carr brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
405(g), seeking judicial review of the Social Security
Administration Commissioner's denial of his application
for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under
Title XVI of the Social Security Act.
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) found that,
despite Carr's severe impairments, he was not disabled as
he had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”)
to perform work existing in significant numbers in the
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.
following reasons, the decision of the Commissioner will be
reversed and remanded to the Commissioner.
filed his application for benefits on October 27, 2014,
claiming that he became unable to work on January 1, 2010.
(Tr. 172-80.) In his Disability Report, Carr alleged
disability due to developmental disorder, hypothyroidism,
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(“ADHD”), pervasive developmental disorder,
autism spectrum disorder, asthma, mild diabetes, impulse
control disorder, failure to thrive, mild mental retardation,
and abuse of child not otherwise specified. (Tr. 202.) Carr
was 20 years of age when he filed his application for
benefits. (Tr. 172.) His application was denied initially.
(Tr. 71-74.) Carr's claim was denied by an ALJ on April
27, 2017. (Tr. 16-27.) On February 7, 2018, the Appeals
Council denied Carr's claim for review. (Tr. 1-3.) Thus,
the decision of the ALJ stands as the final decision of the
Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.981,
action, Carr argues that the ALJ “erred in assessing an
RFC that was not supported by substantial evidence.”
(Doc. 15 at 8.)
The ALJ's Determination
first found that Carr has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since October 27, 2014, the application date. (Tr.
18.) In addition, the ALJ concluded that Carr had the
following severe impairments: autism spectrum disorder,
intellectual disorder, and pervasive developmental disorder.
Id. The ALJ found that Carr did not have an
impairment or combination of impairments that met or
medically equaled the severity of one of the listed
impairments. (Tr. 19.)
Carr'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 a full range of work at all
exertional levels but with the following nonexertional
limitations: is able to perform simple, routine tasks in a
work environment free of fast paced productivity requirements
involving simple work related decisions with few work place
changes. The individual can occasionally interact
appropriately with the general public and co-workers.
found that Carr had no past relevant work, but was capable of
performing other jobs existing in significant numbers in the
national economy, such as laundry worker, machine feeder,
manufacturing helper, light cleaner or housekeeper, and light
machine tender. (Tr. 26-27.) The ALJ therefore concluded that
Carr was not under a disability, as defined in the Social
Security Act, since October 27, 2014, the date the
application was filed. (Tr. 27.)
ALJ's final decision reads as follows:
Based on the application for supplemental security income
protectively filed on October 27, 2014, the claimant is not
disabled under section 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security
Standard of Review
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).
determine whether the Commissioner's decision is
supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole,
the Court must review ...