Matthew Verser v. Social Security Administration

Verser · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Central Division · January 13, 2026 · No. 4:25-CV-00434 BSM-JTK

Summary

A United States magistrate judge issued a recommended disposition in Matthew Verser’s action seeking judicial review of the denial of Social Security disability benefits. The recommendation concludes that the Administrative Law Judge properly evaluated the medical opinions and that the residual functional capacity assessment was supported by substantial evidence. It recommends affirming the Commissioner’s decision and dismissing the case with prejudice.

Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Central Division
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Central Division
Decision date
January 13, 2026
Docket number
4:25-CV-00434 BSM-JTK
Procedural posture
Plaintiff sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner's final decision denying Title II disability insurance benefits. The magistrate judge recommended affirming the Commissioner's decision and dismissing the case with prejudice, subject to objections and review by the district judge.
Standard of review
The court determines whether the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and is based on legal error. The court may not independently reweigh the evidence or reverse merely because substantial evidence would support a contrary result.
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Parties
Matthew Verser v. Social Security Administration
Disposition
other

Topics

judicial review of agency actionstandard of reviewadministrative lawdisability definition

Practice areas

Social Security disabilityadministrative lawfederal judicial review

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Commissioner's decision was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and was free of legal error.
  2. Whether the ALJ properly evaluated the psychological opinions, including the opinion of Dr. Samuel Hester.
  3. Whether the ALJ's residual functional capacity determination adequately incorporated Verser's supported mental limitations, including limitations in adapting and managing himself.

Holdings

  1. The Commissioner's decision denying disability benefits should be affirmed because it is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and is not based on legal error.
  2. The ALJ properly evaluated Dr. Hester's psychological opinion and was not required to accept all of its proposed restrictions in the RFC.
  3. The ALJ was not required to impose greater mental-function restrictions in the RFC, including greater restrictions concerning adaptation and management of oneself.

Key quotations

The 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 whether it is based on legal error. (at 3)
It is not the task of this Court to review the evidence and make an independent decision. (at 3-4)
There is substantial evidence to support the Commissioner=s decision to deny benefits. (at 8)

Factual background

Verser alleged disability from bipolar disorder, depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, schizophrenia, spinal and upper-extremity conditions, obesity, and coronary artery disease. The ALJ found severe impairments but concluded that Verser retained the residual functional capacity for medium work with physical, pace, public-contact, and other restrictions. Verser received conservative mental-health treatment, reported improvement with medication, performed daily activities, and continued working 20 to 25 hours per week after the alleged onset date. The ALJ found that jobs existed in significant numbers that Verser could perform.

Procedural history

Verser applied for disability insurance benefits in July 2021, alleging disability beginning April 1, 2021. His application was denied initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, an administrative law judge found him not disabled, and the Appeals Council denied review. Verser then sought judicial review, leading to this recommended disposition.

Remand instructions

No remand was recommended. The magistrate judge recommended affirming the Commissioner's decision and dismissing the case with prejudice.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…