MEMORANDUM OPINION
BARRY A. BRYANT, Magistrate Judge.
Jennifer E. Williamson ("Plaintiff") brings this action pursuant to § 205(g) of Title II of the Social Security Act ("The Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2010), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("SSA") denying her applications for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI"), Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB"), and a period of disability under Titles II and XVI of the Act.
The Parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge to conduct any and all proceedings in this case, including conducting the trial, ordering the entry of a final judgment, and conducting all post-judgment proceedings. ECF No. 5.1 Pursuant to this authority, the Court issues this memorandum opinion and orders the entry of a final judgment in this matter.
1. Background:
Plaintiff protectively filed her disability applications on January 18, 2013. (Tr. 69). In her applications, Plaintiff alleges being disabled due to fibromyalgia. (Tr. 264). Plaintiff alleges an onset date of March 27, 2012. (Tr. 69). These applications were denied initially and again upon reconsideration. (Tr. 122-152).
Thereafter, Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on her denied applications. (Tr. 174-175). The ALJ granted that request and held an administrative hearing on March 17, 2014 in Texarkana, Arkansas. (Tr. 91-121). At this hearing, Plaintiff was present and was represented by Greg Giles. Id. Plaintiff and Vocational Expert ("VE") Mr. Fildry2 testified at this hearing. Id. At this hearing, Plaintiff testified she was thirty-eight (38) years old, which is defined as a "younger person" under 20 C.F.R. § 416.963(c) (SSI) and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(c) (2008) (DIB). (Tr. 95). As for her level of education, Plaintiff testified she completed high school and "some" college. (Tr. 95).
After this hearing, on April 24, 2015, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff's disability applications. (Tr. 69-87). In this decision, the ALJ found Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Act through December 31, 2017. (Tr. 71, Finding 1). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity ("SGA") since March 27, 2012, her alleged onset date. (Tr. 71-72, Finding 2). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: fibromyalgia and obesity. (Tr. 72-73, Finding 3). Despite being severe, the ALJ determined these impairments did not meet or medically equal the requirements of any of the Listings of Impairments in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Regulations No. 4 ("Listings"). (Tr. 73-76, Finding 4).
The ALJ then considered Plaintiff's Residual Functional Capacity ("RFC"). (Tr. 77-85, Finding 5). First, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints and found her claimed limitations were not entirely credible. Id. Second, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the RFC to perform the following:
I find that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work. She can stand and/or walk for about 2 hours in an eight-hour workday, but sit 6 hours in an eight-hour day. She is not limited in pushing and pulling with her upper and lower extremities. She can occasionally climb, bend, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. She has no manipulative, visual, environmental, or communicative limitations.
Id.
The ALJ then evaluated Plaintiff's Past Relevant Work ("PRW") and found Plaintiff was unable to perform her PRW. (Tr. 85-86, Finding 6). The ALJ also considered whether Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. (Tr. 86-87, Finding 10). The VE testified at the administrative hearing regarding this issue. Id.
Based upon that testimony, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform occupations such as the following: (1) order clerk with 139,000 such jobs in the nation and 500 such jobs in Arkansas; (2) assembler with 106,000 such jobs in the nation and 600 such jobs in Arkansas; and (3) cutter with 136,000 such jobs in the nation and 750 such jobs in Arkansas. (Tr. 87). Because Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform this other work, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined by the Act, from March 37, 2012 (application date) through April 24, 2015 (ALJ's decision date). (Tr. 87, Finding 11).
Thereafter, Plaintiff requested a review by the Appeals Council. (Tr. 62). On June 23, 2016, the Appeals Council denied this request. (Tr. 1-3). On July 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed the present appeal with this Court. ECF No. 1. The Parties consented to the jurisdiction of this Court on July 22, 2016. ECF No. 5. Both Parties have filed appeal briefs. ECF Nos. 12-13. This case is now ripe for determination.
2. Applicable Law:
In reviewing this case, this Court is required to determine whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2006); Ramirez v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 576, 583 (8th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance of the evidence, but it is enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support the Commissioner's decision. See Johnson v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1145, 1147 (8th Cir. 2001).
As long as there is substantial evidence in the record that supports the Commissioner's decision, the Court may not reverse it simply because substantial evidence exists in the record that would have supported a contrary outcome or because the Court would have decided the case differently. See Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2001). If, after reviewing the record, it is possible to draw two inconsistent positions from the evidence and one of those positions represents the findings of the ALJ, the decision of the ALJ must be affirmed. See Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065, 1068 (8th Cir. 2000).
It is well-established that a claimant for Social Security disability benefits has the burden of proving his or her disability by establishing a physical or mental disability that lasted at least one year and that prevents him or her from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. See Cox v. Apfel, 160 F.3d 1203, 1206 (8th Cir. 1998); 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act defines a "physical or mental impairment" as "an impairment that results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques." 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(3), 1382(3)(c). A plaintiff must show that his or her disability, not simply his or her impairment, has lasted for at least twelve consecutive months. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A).
To determine whether the adult claimant suffers from a disability, the Commissioner uses the familiar five-step sequential evaluation. He determines: (1) whether the claimant is presently engaged in a "substantial gainful activity"; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment that significantly limits the claimant's physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities; (3) whether the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals a presumptively disabling impairment listed in the regulations (if so, the claimant is disabled without regard to age, education, and work experience); (4) whether the claimant has the Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) to perform his or her past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant cannot perform the past work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove that there are other jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform. See Cox, 160 F.3d at 1206; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)-(f). The fact finder only considers the plaintiff's age, education, and work experience in light of his or her RFC if the final stage of this analysis is reached. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (2003).
3. Discussion:
In her appeal brief, Plaintiff raises three arguments for reversal: (1) the ALJ failed to properly assess her fibromyalgia; (2) the ALJ erred in discrediting her subjective complaints; and (3) the ALJ erred in discrediting the opinions of her treating physicians. ECF No. 12 at 1-19. Upon review, the Court agrees with Plaintiff's second argument and finds the ALJ improperly evaluated her subjective complaints. Accordingly, the Court will only address this argument for reversal.
In assessing the credibility of a claimant, the ALJ is required to examine and to apply the five factors from Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984) or from 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and 20 C.F.R. § 416.929.3 See Shultz v. Astrue, 479 F.3d 979, 983 (2007). The factors to consider are as follows: (1) the claimant's daily activities; (2) the duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; (3) the precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; and (5) the functional restrictions. See Polaski, 739 at 1322.
The factors must be analyzed and considered in light of the claimant's subjective complaints of pain. See id. The ALJ is not required to methodically discuss each factor as long as the ALJ acknowledges and examines these factors prior to discounting the claimant's subjective complaints. See Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969, 971-72 (8th Cir. 2000). As long as the ALJ properly applies these five factors and gives several valid reasons for finding that the Plaintiff's subjective complaints are not entirely credible, the ALJ's credibility determination is entitled to deference. See id.; Cox v. Barnhart, 471 F.3d 902, 907 (8th Cir. 2006). The ALJ, however, cannot discount Plaintiff's subjective complaints "solely because the objective medical evidence does not fully support them [the subjective complaints]." Polaski, 739 F.2d at 1322.
When discounting a claimant's complaint of pain, the ALJ must make a specific credibility determination, articulating the reasons for discrediting the testimony, addressing any inconsistencies, and discussing the Polaski factors. See Baker v. Apfel, 159 F.3d 1140, 1144 (8th Cir. 1998). The inability to work without some pain or discomfort is not a sufficient reason to find a Plaintiff disabled within the strict definition of the Act. The issue is not the existence of pain, but whether the pain a Plaintiff experiences precludes the performance of substantial gainful activity. See Thomas v. Sullivan, 928 F.2d 255, 259 (8th Cir. 1991).
In the present action, the ALJ did not comply with the requirements of Polaski. Instead of complying with Polaski and considering the Polaski factors, the ALJ only focused on Plaintiff's medical records. (Tr. 77-85). Notably, in his decision, the ALJ recited paragraph after paragraph of the legal standard for evaluating Plaintiff's subjective complaints. Id. Then, the ALJ examined the medical records to determine whether Plaintiff's subjective allegations were supported by those medical records. Id. Indeed, although the ALJ recited he had evaluated Plaintiff's subjective allegations in accordance with Polaski, the ALJ truly only discounted Plaintiff's subjective complaints because they were not supported by her medical records:
In sum, the above residual functional capacity assessment is supported by the objective medical evidence, the opinions of the State Agency's highly qualified medical, psychiatric personnel and other consultative doctors; a careful review of the claimant's allegations, symptoms, and purported limitations, and the contradiction of the claimant's testimony at the hearing in comparison to the medical evidence of record, and the longitudinal evidence of record.
(Tr. 85) (emphasis added).
The Court finds the ALJ's decision to discount Plaintiff's subjective complaints without a sufficient basis was improper under Polaski. See Polaski, 739 F.2d at 1322 (holding a claimant's subjective complaints cannot be discounted "solely because the objective medical evidence does not fully support them [the subjective complaints]"). Accordingly, because the ALJ provided no valid reasons for discounting Plaintiff's subjective complaints, this case must be reversed and remanded.
4. Conclusion:
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that the decision of the ALJ, denying benefits to Plaintiff, is not supported by substantial evidence and should be reversed and remanded.4 A judgment incorporating these findings will be entered pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52 and 58.
