United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fort Smith Division
JAMES L. FRAZIER PLAINTIFF
CAROLYN W. COLVIN Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT
BARRY A. BRYANT U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
L. Frazier (“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 Disability
Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and a period of
disability under Title II of the Act.
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. Pursuant to this authority, the Court
issues this memorandum opinion and orders the entry of a
final judgment in this matter.
the second time this case has been before this Court.
Briefly, Plaintiff protectively filed his disability
application approximately eight years ago on February 9,
2009. (Tr. 11). In his application, Plaintiff alleges being
disabled due to back problems and diabetes. (Tr. 132).
Plaintiff alleges an onset date of September 17, 2008. (Tr.
11). This application was denied initially and again upon
reconsideration. (Tr. 76-77).
Plaintiff's application was denied, Plaintiff requested
an administrative hearing on his application, and this
hearing request was granted. (Tr. 23-75). Plaintiff's
first administrative hearing was held on March 9, 2010.
Id. Thereafter, on July 19, 2010, the ALJ entered a
fully unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff's
application. (Tr. 8-18). Plaintiff appealed that denial to
this Court. See Frazier v. SSA, 2:12-cv-02029, ECF
Nos. 13-14 (W.D. Ark. June 7, 2013). Because the ALJ failed
to comply with Polaski and failed to properly
evaluate Plaintiff's subjective complaints, the Court
reversed and remanded Plaintiff's case. Id.
then held a second administrative hearing on June 16, 2015.
(Tr. 346-380). At this hearing, Plaintiff was present and was
represented by Fred Caddell. Id. Plaintiff and
Vocational Expert (“VE”) Jim Spragins testified
at this hearing. Id. Thereafter, on October 28,
2015, the ALJ entered a second fully unfavorable decision.
(Tr. 321-338). In this decision, the ALJ found Plaintiff met
the insured status requirements of the Act through December
31, 2013. (Tr. 326, Finding 1). The ALJ found Plaintiff had
not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity
(“SGA”) since September 17, 2008, his alleged
onset date. (Tr. 326, Finding 2). The ALJ found Plaintiff had
the following severe impairments: degenerative disk disease,
diabetes mellitus, and hypertension. (Tr. 326-329, 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. 329-340,
evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints and
determined his RFC. (Tr. 330-336, Finding 5). 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 sedentary work as defined in
20 CFR 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a) except he can occasionally
climb, balance, crawl, kneel, stoop and crouch.
determined Plaintiff was forty-two (42) years old on his
alleged onset date. (Tr. 336, Finding 7). At this age, he
qualified as a “younger person' under 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1563(c) (2008) (DIB). Id. As for his
education, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had a limited
education and was able to communicate in English. (Tr. 336,
evaluated Plaintiff's PRW and found Plaintiff did not
retain the capacity to perform any of his PRW. (Tr. 336,
Finding 6). The ALJ then considered whether Plaintiff
retained the capacity to perform other jobs existing in
significant numbers in the national economy. (Tr. 337-338,
Finding 10). The VE testified at the administrative hearing
regarding this issue. Id.
the VE testified that a hypothetical individual with
Plaintiff's limitations retained the capacity to perform
the following sedentary, unskilled occupations: (1) document
preparer with 21, 000 such jobs in the national economy and
200 such jobs in Arkansas; (2) escort vehicle driver with 23,
000 such jobs in the national economy and 200 such jobs in
Arkansas; and (3) small products assembler with 203, 000 such
jobs in the national economy and 4, 000 such jobs in
Arkansas. Id. Based upon this finding, the ALJ
determined Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as
defined by the Act, from his alleged onset date through the
date of his decision or through October 28, 2015. (Tr. 338,
January 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this case.
ECF No. 1. Both Parties have filed appeal briefs and have
consented to the jurisdiction of this Court. ECF ...