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.

Holter v. Colvin

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division

November 8, 2016

FRANKIE JEAN HOLTER PLAINTIFF
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          HON. BARRY A. BRYANT U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Frankie Jean Holter ("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") denyingher application for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and a period of disability.

         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. 8.[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 application on April 1, 2010. (Tr. 13). In this application, Plaintiff alleges being disabled due to arthritis in her hips, right knee pain, bilateral carpel tunnel syndrome, back pain, bunions on her feet, depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. (Tr. 151). This application was denied initially and again upon reconsideration. (Tr. 65-66).

         A. First Administrative Decision

         Thereafter, Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on her denied application, and this hearing request was granted. (Tr. 31 -64). This hearing was held on January 17, 2012 in Hot Springs, Arkansas. Id. At this hearing, Plaintiff was present and was represented by Sherri McDonough. Id. Plaintiff and Vocational Expert ("VE") Diane Smith testified at this hearing. Id. At this hearing, Plaintiff testified she was forty-nine (49) years old, which is defined as a "younger person" under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(c) and 20 C.F.R. § 416.963(c). (Tr. 33-34). As for her education level, Plaintiff testified she had an associate's or two-year degree and some limited vocational training after college. (Tr. 33-34).

         On March 27, 2012, after the administrative hearing, the ALJ entered a fully unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff s application. (Tr. 10-26). The ALJ found Plaintiff last met the insured status requirements of the Act on December 31, 2011. (Tr. 15, Finding 1). The ALJ found Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity ("SGA") from her alleged onset date of August 1, 2005 through her date last insured of December 31, 2011. (Tr. 15, Finding 2). The ALJ determined Plaintiff suffered from the following severe impairments: bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, depression and anxiety, peripheral neuropathy, and disorder of the back. (Tr. 15, Finding 3). The ALJ also determined 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. 16-17, Finding 4).

         In this decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff s subj ective complaints and determined her RFC. (Tr. 17-24, Finding 5). First, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiffs subjective complaints and found her claimed limitations were not entirely credible. Id. Second, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform a wide range of light work:

After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that, through the date last insured, the claimant had the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) except the claimant can only occasionally climb, balance, stoop, bend, crouch, kneel and/or crawl. Based on diagnoses related to depression and anxiety, the claimant would be limited to jobs in which interpersonal contact is incidental to the work performed, the complexity of tasks is learned and performed by rote with few variables and little individual judgment, and the supervision required is simple, direct and concrete.

Id.

         The ALJ then evaluated Plaintiffs Past Relevant Work ("PRW"). (Tr. 24, Finding 6). The ALJ determined that, considering her RFC, Plaintiff was unable to perform any of her PRW. (Tr. 24, Finding 6). The ALJ then determined whether Plaintiff retained the capacity other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. (Tr. 24-25, Finding 10). The VE testified at the administrative hearing regarding this issue. Id. Considering her RFC and other limitations, the VE testified Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform representative occupations such as (1) small products assembler (light, unskilled) with 40, 000 such jobs in Arkansas, 150, 000 such jobs in the region, and 1.8 million such jobs in the nation; and (2) small parts packer (light, unskilled) with 5, 000 such jobs in Arkansas, 20, 000 such jobs in the region, and 550, 000 such jobs in the nation. (Tr. 25). 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 August 1, 2005 (alleged onset date) through December 31, 2011 (date Plaintiff was last insured). (Tr. 25, Finding 11).

         Plaintiff sought review with the Appeals Council. (Tr. 7). Thereafter, on March 23, 2013, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff s request for review. (Tr. 1-3). Plaintiff filed suit in this Court, and the Government did not oppose the remand. See Holter v. SSA, 6:13-cv-06058 (ECF No. 12). Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded Plaintiffs case for further administrative consideration. Id.

         B. Second ...


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.