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.

Carr v. Saul

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

August 28, 2019

KENDALL CARR, Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW M. SAUL,[1] Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM

          ABBIE CRITES-LEONI, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Plaintiff 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.

         An 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 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 reversed and remanded to the Commissioner.

         I. Procedural History

         Carr 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, [2] 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, 416.1481.

         In this action, Carr argues that the ALJ “erred in assessing an RFC that was not supported by substantial evidence.” (Doc. 15 at 8.)

         II. The ALJ's Determination

         The ALJ 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.)

         As to 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.

(Tr. 21.)

         The ALJ 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.)

         The 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 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 ...


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.