Brown v. Colvin

222 Citing cases

  1. Alhilfy v. Saul

    Case No. 4:20-cv-00235-NKL (W.D. Mo. Feb. 9, 2021)   Cited 7 times
    In Alhilfy, the Court found that an RFC that had only two limitations-that the claimant was to have no contact with the general public and could only perform work that was of a simple, routine and repetitive nature-was inconsistent with an opinion that that the claimant was moderately limited in his ability to work with others and accept instructions and criticisms from his supervisors. Id.

    The Court must affirm the Commissioner's denial of social security benefits so long as "there was no legal error" and "the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole." Brown v. Colvin, 825 F.3d 936, 939 (8th Cir. 2016). "Substantial evidence" is less than a preponderance but enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support the ALJ's conclusion.

  2. Calder v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin.

    5:22-CV-5187 (W.D. Ark. Mar. 25, 2024)

    Brown v. Colvin, 825 F.3d 936, 939 (8th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted); see 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence exists when a reasonable mind would accept the evidence as “adequate to support a conclusion.”

  3. Holdeman v. Kijakazi

    20-cv-729-NKL (W.D. Mo. Dec. 22, 2021)   Cited 15 times

    Alhilfy v. Saul, No. 4:20-CV-00235-NKL, 2021 WL 462122, at *2 (W.D. Mo. Feb. 9, 2021) (quoting Brown v. Colvin, 825 F.3d 936, 939 (8th Cir. 2016)). ‘“Substantial evidence' is less than a preponderance of evidence but enough that a reasonable mind could find the evidence adequate to support the ALJ's conclusion.”

  4. Rozelski v. Soc. Sec. Admin.

    4:24-CV-00519-KGB-ERE (E.D. Ark. Oct. 8, 2024)

    A. Standard of Review In this appeal, the Court must review the Commissioner's decision for legal error and determine whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Brown v. Colvin, 825 F.3d 936, 939 (8th Cir. 2016) (citing Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 922, 929 (8th Cir. 2010)). “Substantial evidence” in this context means “enough that a reasonable mind would find [the evidence] adequate to support the ALJ's decision.”

  5. Davis v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin.

    5:22-CV-5201 (W.D. Ark. Mar. 31, 2024)

    The Court reviews this case de novo to “ensure that there was no legal error and that the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.” Brown v. Colvin, 825 F.3d 936, 939 (8th Cir. 2016); see 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence is a less onerous burden than preponderance of the evidence: it is satisfied when a reasonable mind would accept the evidence as “adequate to support [the ALJ's] conclusion.” Austin v. Kijakazi, 52 F.4th 723, 728 (8th Cir. 2022).

  6. Thompson v. Kijakazi

    3:22-cv-5078-NKL (W.D. Mo. Jun. 20, 2023)

    The Court must affirm the Commissioner's denial of social security benefits so long as “there was no legal error” and “the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.” Brown v. Colvin, 825 F.3d 936, 939 (8th Cir. 2016) (internal citation omitted). “Substantial evidence is ‘less than a preponderance but . . . enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support the ALJ's conclusion.'”

  7. Gibbs v. Kijakazi

    4:21-cv-00127-KGB (E.D. Ark. Sep. 19, 2022)

    . Brown v. Colvin, 825 F.3d 936, 939 (8th Cir. 2016) (explaining that “[s]ubstantial evidence is less than a preponderance, but enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support a conclusion”); Long v. Chater, 108 F.3d 185, 187 (8th Cir. 1997) (explaining that it is not the role of the district court to reverse the Commissioner's decision because “substantial evidence exists for the opposite decision.”). Accordingly, as the record shows enough evidence for a reasonable mind to find it adequate to support the ALJ's conclusion, the Court adopts the Recommendation as this Court's findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 30). Brown, 825 F.3d at 939.

  8. Nelson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    No. 20-CV-2035-LRR (N.D. Iowa Feb. 11, 2022)

    Brown v. Colvin, 825 F.3d 936, 939 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting Snead v. Barnhart, 360 F.3d 834, 838 (8th Cir. 2004)); see also Smith v. Barnhart, 435 F.3d 926, 930 (8th Cir. 2006) (“A social security hearing is a non-adversarial proceeding, and the ALJ has a duty to fully develop the record.”). “There is no bright line rule indicating when the Commissioner has or has not adequately developed the record; rather, such an assessment is made on a case-by-case basis.”

  9. Lilja v. Berryhill

    Case No. 16-cv-540 (TNL) (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2017)   Cited 10 times

    "There is no error when an ALJ fails to explain why an impairment does not equal one of the listed impairments as long as the overall conclusion is supported by the record." Id.; see Brown v. Colvin, 825 F.3d 936, 940 (8th Cir. 2016) ("The ALJ's failure to identify and analyze the appropriate listing, although error, may not by itself require reversal so long as the record otherwise support's the ALJ's overall conclusion."). Next, the Court turns to the issue of equivalency. "An impairment is medically equivalent under the regulations if it is 'at least equal in severity and duration to the criteria of any listed impairment.'"

  10. Koch v. Kijakazi

    4 F.4th 656 (8th Cir. 2021)   Cited 53 times
    Addressing the treating physician rule

    "We review the ALJ's denial of disability insurance benefits de novo to ensure that there was no legal error and that the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole." Combs v. Berryhill , 878 F.3d 642, 645–46 (8th Cir. 2017) (quoting Brown v. Colvin , 825 F.3d 936, 939 (8th Cir. 2016) ). "Substantial evidence in the record as a whole" is a more "rigorous" standard than simply "substantial evidence," which is "evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support [the Commissioner's] conclusion." Burress v. Apfel , 141 F.3d 875, 878 (8th Cir. 1998) (quoting Wilson v. Sullivan , 886 F.2d 172, 175 (8th Cir. 1989) ).