Morris v. Colvin, No. 4:2014cv03190 - Document 26 (D. Neb. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION - The Court has reviewed the medical records, the briefs of the parties, and the findings of the ALJ. The Court has likewise thoroughly reviewed each of plaintiff's six arguments that the ALJ erred in his analysis and ultimat e conclusion. The Court finds that the ALJ's analysis and conclusion are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, this Court will affirm the decision. A separate order will be issued in accordance with this memorandum opinion. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (LAC)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Morris v. Colvin Doc. 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA AMANDA ROSE MORRIS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting ) Commissioner of Social ) Security Administration, ) ) Defendant. ) ______________________________) 4:14CV3190 MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court for review of a final decision of the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the “Commissioner”), wherein the Commissioner denied the plaintiff, Amanda Rose Morris’ (“plaintiff” or “Morris”) request for disability insurance benefits. After review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the Commissioner’s decision should be affirmed. BACKGROUND On September 16, 2011, plaintiff “filed applications for a period of disability and for the payment of disability insurance benefits under Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act . . . .” (Filing No. 1 at 2). Plaintiff’s applications were denied at the initial and reconsideration levels (Id.). Plaintiff was granted a hearing before an Dockets.Justia.com administrative law judge (“ALJ”) (Id.). The ALJ denied plaintiff’s applications on June 26, 2013 (Filing No. 9-4 at 23960). On August 29, 2014, the Appeals Council denied plaintiff’s request for review of the ALJ’s decision and stated that the ALJ’s “decision is the final decision of the Commissioner . . . .” (Filing No. 9-2 at 1-4). On September 22, 2014, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), plaintiff filed the instant action (Filing No. 1). On January 6, 2016, the case was reassigned to the undersigned for disposition (Filing No. 25). Standard of Review The Commissioner’s decision will be affirmed “if the record contains substantial evidence to support it.” Barnhart, 314 F.3d 964, 966 (8th Cir. 2003). Edwards v. “Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance, but enough that a reasonable mind might accept it as adequate to support a decision.” Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2001) (internal marks and cite omitted). “In determining whether existing evidence is substantial, [a court should] consider evidence that detracts from the Commissioner’s decision as well as evidence that supports it.” Hutsell v. Massanari, 259 F.3d 707, 711 (8th Cir. 2001) (internal citation omitted). If the record reveals substantial evidence supporting the Commissioner’s -2- decision, then that decision should not be reversed merely because “substantial evidence exists in the record that would have supported a contrary outcome.” Hutsell, 259 F.3d at 711. In other words, “[the Court] may not reverse simply because [the Court] would have decided differently or because substantial evidence supports a contrary outcome.” Grable v. Colvin, 770 F.3d 1196, 1201 (8th Cir. 2014) (citing Davis v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 962, 966 (8th Cir. 2001)). Finally, the claimant “bears the burden of proving disability.” Teague v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 611, 615 (8th Cir. 2011). Conclusion The Court has reviewed the medical records, the briefs of the parties, and the findings of the ALJ. The Court has likewise thoroughly reviewed each of plaintiff’s six arguments that the ALJ erred in his analysis and ultimate conclusion. The Court finds that the ALJ’s analysis and conclusion are supported by substantial evidence. decision. Accordingly, this Court will affirm the A separate order will be issued in accordance with this memorandum opinion. DATED this 18th day of January, 2017. BY THE COURT: /s/ Lyle E. Strom _____________________________ LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge United States District Court -3-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
