United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division
BARRY A. BRYANT U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Walker (“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 her 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.
protectively filed her DIB application on March 1, 2013. (Tr.
77). In this application, Plaintiff alleges being disabled
due to breast cancer. (Tr. 237). Plaintiff alleges an onset
date of December 31, 2012. (Tr. 77). This application was
denied initially and again upon reconsideration. (Tr.
Plaintiff's application was denied, Plaintiff requested
an administrative hearing on her application, and this
hearing request was granted. (Tr. 93-133). Thereafter, on
August 12, 2014, the ALJ held an administrative hearing on
Plaintiff's application. Id. At this hearing,
Plaintiff was present and was represented by Shannon Muse
Carroll. Id. Plaintiff and Vocational Expert
(“VE”) Myrtle Johnson testified at this hearing.
administrative hearing, Plaintiff testified she was
fifty-five (55) years old, which is defined as a
“person of advanced age” under 20 C.F.R. §
404.1563(e) (2008) (DIB). (Tr. 97). As for her education, the
ALJ determined Plaintiff had a high school education and was
able to communicate in English. (Tr. 104-105).
February 11, 2015, after the administrative hearing, the ALJ
entered a fully unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff's
application. (Tr. 74-86). The ALJ determined Plaintiff met
the insured status requirements of the Act through December
31, 2016. (Tr. 79, Finding 1). The ALJ determined Plaintiff
had not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity
(“SGA”) since December 31, 2012, her alleged
onset date. (Tr. 79, Finding 2). The ALJ determined Plaintiff
had the following severe impairments: ductal carcinoma of the
breast and osteoarthritis. (Tr. 79-81, 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. 81-82, Finding 4).
then considered Plaintiff's Residual Functional Capacity
(“RFC”). (Tr. 82-85, Finding 5). First, the ALJ
evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints and found her
claimed limitations were not entirely credible. Id.
Second, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the RFC to
perform the following:
After careful consideration of the entire record, the
undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual
functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20
CFR 404.1567(b) except that she can sit for six to eight
hours in an eight hour day and stand and walk for six to
eight hours in an eight hour day for one to two hours without
interruption. She can occasionally climb, stoop, crouch,
kneel, and crawl, but never balance or climb ladders, ropes,
and scaffolds. She cannot work at restrictive heights. She
can never operate moving machinery such as driving a bus,
taxi or forklift. She can frequently reach and handle.
then evaluated Plaintiff's Past Relevant Work
(“PRW”). (Tr. 85-86, Finding 6). Considering her
RFC, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the capacity to
perform her PRW as a furniture salesman. Id. Because
Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform this work, the ALJ
also determined Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as
defined by the Act, from December 31, 2012 through the date
of his decision or through February 11, 2015. (Tr. 86,
Plaintiff requested the review of the Appeals Council. On
January 11, 2016, the Appeals Council denied this request for
review. (Tr. 1-4). On February 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed his
Complaint in this matter. ECF No. 1. The Parties consented to
the jurisdiction of this Court on February 8, 2016. ECF No.
5. Both Parties have filed appeal briefs. ECF Nos. 11-12.
This case is now ready for decision.