Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Haymon v. Colvin

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division

July 31, 2015

THEODIS HAYMON, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BARRY A. BRYANT, Magistrate Judge.

Theodis Haymon ("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 his application for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") under Title 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 his disability application on December 9, 2011. (Tr. 23). In his application, Plaintiff alleges being disabled due to stomach ulcers, joint pain, back problems, and rectal bleeding. (Tr. 147). Plaintiff alleges an onset date of May 23, 2011. (Tr. 23). Plaintiff's application was denied initially and again upon reconsideration. (Tr. 73-74).

Thereafter, Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on his application, and this hearing request was granted. (Tr. 92, 102-109). Plaintiff's administrative hearing was held on August 14, 2013 in Texarkana, Arkansas. (Tr. 38-72). At this hearing, Plaintiff was present and was represented by Donna Prince. Id. Plaintiff and Vocational Expert ("VE") Teresa Beasley testified at this hearing. Id. At this hearing, Plaintiff testified he was fifty-three (53) years old. (Tr. 43). This age qualifies as a "person closely approaching advanced age" under 20 C.F.R. § 416.963(d) (2008). As for his education, Plaintiff also testified he had only completed the ninth grade in school. (Tr. 46).

On December 13, 2013, after the administrative hearing, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff's disability application. (Tr. 20-34). In this decision, the ALJ found Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity ("SGA") since December 9, 2011, his application date. (Tr. 25, Finding 1). The ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments (severe in combination): mild obesity and left knee arthritis and paranoid schizophrenia. (Tr. 25-29, Finding 2). The ALJ also determined, however, that Plaintiff's 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. 29-30, Finding 3).

In this decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints and determined his Residual Functional Capacity ("RFC"). (Tr. 30-32, Finding 4). First, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints and found his claimed limitations were not entirely credible. Id. Second, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform the following:

After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform medium work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(c) except limited to occasional interaction with supervisors, coworkers, and the general public and can perform simple jobs.

Id. "Medium work" includes the following:

Medium work involves lifting no more than 50 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 25 pounds. If someone can do medium work, we determine that he or she can also do sedentary and light work.

20 C.F.R. § 416.967(c) (2010).

The ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's Past Relevant Work ("PRW") and found Plaintiff was unable to perform any of his PRW. (Tr. 32, Finding 5). The ALJ then determined whether Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. (Tr. 33-34, Finding 9).

Considering his age, education, work experience, and RFC, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform work as a box bender (medium, unskilled) with 3, 715 such jobs in Arkansas and 58, 332 such jobs in the nation; production helper (medium, unskilled) with 5, 237 such jobs in Arkansas and 145, 920 such jobs in the nation; and floor waxer (medium, unskilled) with 4, 278 such jobs in Arkansas and 87, 734 such jobs in the nation. Id. Because Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform this other work, the ALJ determined he had not been under a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.