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.

Frazier v. Colvin

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fort Smith Division

February 3, 2017

JAMES L. FRAZIER PLAINTIFF
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

         James 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.

         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:

         This is 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).

         After 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.

         The ALJ 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, Finding 4).

         The ALJ 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.

Id.

         The ALJ 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, Finding 8).

         The ALJ 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.

         Specifically, 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, Finding 11).

         On 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 ...


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.