Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
MARK T. LASKER 	PLAINTIFF
4:25-cv-00590-KGB-JJV
FRANK BISIGNANO,
Commissioner,
Social Security Administration, 	DEFENDANT
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
INSTRUCTIONS
This recommended disposition has been submitted to Chief United States District Judge
Kristine 	G. 	Baker. 	The 	parties 	may 	file 	specific 	objections 	to 	these 	findings 	and
recommendations and must provide the factual or legal basis for each objection. 	The objections
must be filed with the Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings and
recommendations. 	A copy must be served on the opposing party. 	The district judge, even in the
absence of objections, may reject these proposed findings and recommendations in whole or in
part.
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
Plaintiff, Mark Lasker, has appealed the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration to deny his claim for disability insurance. 	Both parties have submitted
briefs, Plaintiff has replied, and the case is ready for a decision.
A court’s function on review is to determine whether the Commissioner’s decision is
supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and free of legal error. 	Slusser v.
Astrue, 557 F.3d 923, 925 (8th Cir. 2009); Long v. Chater, 108 F.3d 185, 187 (8th Cir. 1997); see
Case 4:25-cv-00590-KGB Document 11 Filed 11/14/25 Page 1 of 7

2
also 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). 	Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 	Richardson v. Perales, 402
U.S. 389, 401 (1971); Reynolds v. Chater, 82 F.3d 254, 257 (8th Cir. 1996).
In assessing the substantiality of the evidence, courts must consider evidence that detracts
from the Commissioner’s decision as well as evidence that supports it; a court may not, however,
reverse the Commissioner’s decision merely because substantial evidence would have supported
an opposite decision. 	Sultan v. Barnhart, 368 F.3d 857, 863 (8th Cir. 2004); Woolf v. Shalala,
3 F.3d 1210, 1213 (8th Cir. 1993). 	After careful review of the pleadings and evidence in this case,
I find the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and recommend the
Complaint be DISMISSED.
Plaintiff is fifty-seven years old. 	(Tr. 251.) 	He is a high school graduate (Tr. 36) and has
past relevant work as a vacuum operator and cleaner. 	(Tr. 20.)
The ALJ1 found Mr. Lasker had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since June 30,
2022 - the alleged onset date – through June 30, 2022, the date he was last insured. 	(Tr. 15.) 	He
has “severe” impairments in the form of “degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, status-
post January 2022 placement of a spinal cord stimulator; degenerative disc disease of the thoracic
spine; sciatica; neuropathy; type II diabetes mellitus; obesity; and gout.” 	(Id.) The ALJ further
found Mr. Lasker did not have an impairment or combination of impairments meeting or equaling
1 The ALJ followed the required sequential analysis to determine: (1) whether the claimant was
engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if not, whether the claimant had a severe impairment;
(3) if so, whether the impairment (or combination of impairments) met or equaled a listed
impairment; and (4) if not, whether the impairment (or combination of impairments) prevented the
claimant from performing past relevant work; and (5) if so, whether the impairment (or
combination of impairments) prevented the claimant from performing any other jobs available in
significant numbers in the national economy. 	20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)-(g) and 404.1520(a)-(g).
Case 4:25-cv-00590-KGB Document 11 Filed 11/14/25 Page 2 of 7

3
an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.2 	(Tr. 16-17.)
The ALJ determined Mr. Lasker had the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform a
reduced range of light work given his physical impairments. 	(Tr. 17.) 	Given this RFC, the ALJ
determined Plaintiff could no longer perform his past relevant work. 	Accordingly, the ALJ
utilized the services of a vocational expert to determine if jobs existed that Plaintiff could perform
despite his impairments. 	Based in part on the testimony of the vocational expert, (Tr. 50-52), the
ALJ determined Mr. Lasker could perform the jobs of marker and router. 	(Tr. 22.) 	Accordingly,
the ALJ determined Plaintiff was not disabled. 	(Id.)
The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for a review of the ALJ’s decision, making
his decision the final decision of the Commissioner. 	(Tr. 1-9.) 	Plaintiff filed the instant
Complaint initiating this appeal. 	(Doc. No. 2.)
In support of his Complaint, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ’s RFC was flawed. 	(Doc. No.
7 at 12-21.) 	He first argues that the ALJ failed to assess Plaintiff’s RFC in the “function-by-
function” manner required by Social Security Ruling (SSR) 96-8p. 	(Id. at 12-17.) 	Specifically,
Plaintiff says, the ALJ failed to consider his limitation in his ability to walk or stand because, “Had
the ALJ properly assessed Lasker’s ability to stand and walk in the workplace, he would have
found him capable of no more than sedentary work, necessitating a finding of disability under the
Medical-Vocational Guidelines.” 	(Id. at 12-13.)
The Commissioner counters that, “While the regulations require an ALJ to separately
consider a claimant’s ability to sit, stand, lift, carry, push, and pull. . . when an ALJ specifically
addresses the abilities in which the claimant actually experiences a limitation, but is silent as to
2 420 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925, and 416.926.
Case 4:25-cv-00590-KGB Document 11 Filed 11/14/25 Page 3 of 7

4
those areas in which he finds no limitations, the reviewing court should believe that the ALJ
implicitly found no limitation in the latter areas.” 	(Doc. No. 9 at 5.) 	Plaintiff makes a fair point.
But I agree with the Commissioner’s analysis on this point.
Light work involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting
or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds. 	Even though the weight lifted
may be very little, a job is in this category when it requires a good deal of walking
or standing, or when it involves sitting most of the time with some pushing and
pulling of arm or leg controls. 	To be considered capable of performing a full or
wide range of light work, you must have the ability to do substantially all of these
activities. 	If someone can do light work, we determine that he or she can also do
sedentary work, unless there are additional limiting factors such as loss of fine
dexterity or inability to sit for long periods of time.
20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b).
Importantly, the objective medical evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff
can perform work at the light exertional level. 	Plaintiff mainly focuses on the subjective
allegations made to his doctors. 	(Doc. No. 7 at 12.) 	But the objective medical examinations
fail to show anything that would preclude Plaintiff from performing work at the light exertional
level. 	(See e.g. Tr. 437, 441-42, 454, 456, 459, 534, 549, 565, 783-84, 792, 799-800, 807, 814-
15, 825-26, 830-31, 839-40, 849, 886, 890, 895, 900, 922-23, 941, 1134-35, 1142-43, 1150-51,
1159, 1199, 1223.)
I recognize some of the objective imaging supports Plaintiff’s claims. 	However, overall,
the imaging fails to support an allegation of complete disability. 	(Tr. 474, 480, 481, 483, 528,
529, 609, 611, 613.)
I also recognize that Plaintiff’s treating doctor, James Tilley, M.D., initially reported in
August 2019 that Plaintiff was “working in [a] landscaping business.” 	(Tr. 356.) 	In August 2021
and June 2022, he was reportedly working “full time with landscaping.” 	(Tr. 96.) 	And later in
May and October 2023, Dr. Tilley reported Plaintiff was “Working full time with landscaping.”
Case 4:25-cv-00590-KGB Document 11 Filed 11/14/25 Page 4 of 7

5
(Tr. 1059, 1167.) 	This is inconsistent with an allegation of complete disability.
Disability is the “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any
medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or
which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.”
42 U.S.C. § 1382(a)(3)(A). 	A “‘physical or mental impairment’ is 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. § 1382c(a)(3)(D).
The ALJ could rightly conclude Plaintiff was not disabled.
Plaintiff is reminded he had the burden of proving his disability. 	E.g., Sykes v. Bowen,
854 F.2d 284, 285 (8th Cir. 1988). 	Thus, he bore the responsibility of presenting the strongest
case possible. 	Thomas v. Sullivan, 928 F.2d 255, 260 (8th Cir. 1991). 	Plaintiff has simply not
met that burden.
Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ failed to explain why the push and pull with his lower
extremities limitation opined by Rita Allbright, M.D. and Janet Cathey, M.D., was not included in
the RFC. 	(Doc. No. 7 at 17-21.) 	Drs. Allbright and Cathey concluded Plaintiff was “Limited
beyond lift and/or carry” for “Push and/or pull in lower extremities,” (Tr. 98, 108), and the ALJ
found their opinions to be “generally persuasive.” 	(Tr. 20.) 	So, Plaintiff says, it should have
been included in the ALJ’s RFC.
The Commissioner counters:
Here, although the ALJ did not adopt Drs. Albright’s and Cathy’s opinions
regarding pushing or pulling with the lower extremities, he explained why he
included no additional limitations involving the lower extremities in his evaluation
of these opinions (Tr. 20). For instance, the ALJ stated that Plaintiff’s “neuropathy
appeared amenable to proper medical management, as there ‘was significant
improvement in his lower extremity pain’ following placement of the stimulator”
Case 4:25-cv-00590-KGB Document 11 Filed 11/14/25 Page 5 of 7

6
(Tr. 20, citing Tr. 509). The ALJ also referenced examination findings showing
normal gait, strength, and range of motion (Tr. 20).
(Doc. No. 9 at 11.)
I find the Commissioner’s response to be highly persuasive. 	Additionally, for the same
reasons already recited, I find the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. 	And
Plaintiff provides nothing from the medical record that suggests he is limited in pushing and
pulling with his lower extremities.
Plaintiff clearly suffers from some degree of limitation given the longstanding issues with
his back. 	However, the objective medical records support the ALJ’s conclusions here.
Plaintiff’s counsel has done an admirable job advocating for his rights in this case. 	But it
is not the task of a court to review the evidence and make an independent decision. 	Neither is it
to reverse the decision of the ALJ because there is evidence in the record which contradicts his
findings. 	The test is whether there is substantial evidence on the record as a whole which supports
the decision of the ALJ. 	E.g., Mapes v. Chater, 82 F.3d 259, 262 (8th Cir. 1996); Pratt v. Sullivan,
956 F.2d 830, 833 (8th Cir. 1992).
I have reviewed the entire record, including the briefs, the ALJ’s decision, the transcript of
the hearing, and the medical and other evidence. 	There is ample evidence on the record as a whole
that “a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support [the] conclusion” of the ALJ in this
case. 	Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. at 401; see also Reutter ex rel. Reutter v. Barnhart, 372
F.3d 946, 950 (8th Cir. 2004). 	The Commissioner’s decision is not based on legal error.
Case 4:25-cv-00590-KGB Document 11 Filed 11/14/25 Page 6 of 7

7
IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that the final decision of the Commissioner be
affirmed and that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice.
DATED this 14th day of November 2025.
____________________________________
JOE J. 	VOLPE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-00590-KGB Document 11 Filed 11/14/25 Page 7 of 7