Grant v. Astrue

3:09-cv-05090 | W.D. Mo. | Oct 6, 2010


FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION WILLIAM R. GRANT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 09-05090-CV-SW-FJG ) MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, ) Commissioner, Social Security ) Administration, )

) Defendant. ) ORDER This is a proceeding under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq., and Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381 et seq., in which plaintiff requested review of the Commissioner’s decision denying his application for disability benefits. Plaintiff’s claims were denied initially. On June 19, 2007, an administrative law judge (ALJ) rendered a decision in which he found that plaintiff was not under a “disability,” as defined in the Act. On September 9, 2009, the Appeals Council of the Social Security Administration denied plaintiff’s request for review. Thus, the ALJ’s decision stands as the final decision of the Commissioner. Plaintiff’s appeal is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for judgment. The facts and arguments are presented in the parties’ briefs and will not be repeated here .

Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), provides for judicial review of a “final decision” of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration under Title II. [1] Section 1631(c)(3) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3), provides for judicial review to the same extent as the Commissioner’s final determination under section 205. Judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is limited to whether there exists substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the decision of the Commissioner. Siemers v. Shalala, 47 F.3d 299" date_filed="1995-02-10" court="8th Cir." case_name="Mary SIEMERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee">47 F.3d 299, 301 (8 th Cir. 1995). This determination requires review of the entire record, including both evidence in support of, and in opposition to, the Commissioner’s decision. Fountain v. Railroad Retirement Bd., 88 F.3d 528" date_filed="1996-05-30" court="8th Cir." case_name="Charles E. Fountain v. Railroad Retirement Board">88 F.3d 528, 530 (8 th Cir. 1996). The Court’s role, however, is not to re- weigh the evidence or try the issues de novo. Craig v. Chater, 943 F. Supp. 1184" date_filed="1996-10-25" court="W.D. Mo." case_name="Craig v. Chater">943 F. Supp. 1184, 1188 (W.D. Mo. 1996) (citing McClees v. Shalala, 2 F.3d 301" date_filed="1993-08-23" court="8th Cir." case_name="James McCLEES, Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee">2 F.3d 301, 302 (8 th Cir. 1994)). When supported by substantial evidence, the Commissioner’s findings are conclusive and must be affirmed. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389" date_filed="1971-05-03" court="SCOTUS" case_name="Richardson v. Perales">402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971).

Substantial evidence is more that a mere scintilla but less than preponderance. It means such evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Johnson v. Chater, 108 F.3d 178" date_filed="1997-05-12" court="8th Cir." case_name="Debbie A. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Appellee">108 F.3d 178, 179 (8 th Cir. 1997), citations omitted. The substantial evidence standard, however, presupposes a zone of choice within which the decision makers can go either way, without interference by the courts. Clarke v. Bowen, 843 F.2d 271" date_filed="1988-03-30" court="8th Cir." case_name="Nancy E. CLARKE, Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee">843 F.2d 271, 272-73 (8 th Cir. 1988). “[A]n administration decision is not subject to reversal merely because substantial evidence would have supported an opposite decision.” Id. Hence, “if it is possible to draw two inconsistent positions from the evidence and one of those positions represents the agency’s finding, we must affirm reopen Grant’s initial determination because it is not a “final decision” within the meaning of section 205(g) of the Act. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Boock v. Shalala, 48 F.3d 348, 351 (“It is well-settled that the Secretary’s refusal to reopen an administratively final decision . . . is not a ‘final decision . . . made after a hearing’ subject to judicial review under § 405(g).”) the decision.” Roe v. Chater, 92 F.3d 672" date_filed="1996-08-09" court="8th Cir." case_name="William ROE, Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Appellee">92 F.3d 672, 672 (8 th Cir. 1996) (citing Robinson v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 836" date_filed="1992-02-12" court="8th Cir." case_name="Corkie R. Robinson v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services">956 F.2d 836, 838 (8 th Cir. 1992)).

An individual claiming disability benefits has the burden of proving he or she is unable to return to the type of work in which he or she was formerly engaged due to a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d) (1) (A). If the claimant succeeds, the burden of production shifts to the commissioner to establish that plaintiff can perform some other type of substantial gainful activity in the national economy. See Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065" date_filed="2000-07-28" court="8th Cir." case_name="Sheila J. Young v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security">221 F.3d 1065, 1069, n. 5 (8 th Cir. 2000); see also, 68 Fed. Reg. 51,153 - 51,163 (August 26, 2003); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(c)(2).

The Court has reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record. As a result of that review, the Court agrees with the arguments in the Commissioner’s brief and finds that the record as a whole reflects substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s decision. In particular, the ALJ’s determination of Grant’s residual functional capacity is supported by the weight of objective medical evidence. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff’s claim, as stated in his brief (Doc. No. 5) is DENIED . The decision of the ALJ is



Date: 10/6/2010 S/ FERNANDO J. GAITAN , JR. Kansas City, Missouri Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr.

Chief United States District Judge 3


[1] Since this Court only has jurisdiction to review a “final decision” of the Commissioner made after a hearing, the Court cannot review the Agency’s refusal to