United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Harrison Division
KIM L. DAVIS PLAINTIFF
NANCY A. BERRYHILL Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT
BARRY A. BRYANT U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Davis (“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 applications for Disability
Insurance Benefits (“DIB”), Supplemental Security
Income (“SSI”), and a period of disability under
Titles II and XVI 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 disability applications on August 3,
2012. (Tr. 11). In her applications, Plaintiff alleges being
disabled due to fibromyalgia, migraines, and pain. (Tr. 182).
During the administrative hearing in this matter, Plaintiff
also alleged being disabled due to urinary incontinence:
“I have issues with my bladder, frequent urination and
constantly feel like I have to go to the bathroom, and I have
to cath at least eight times a day which I need help doing
that because I can't get it right.” (Tr. 39).
Plaintiff alleged an onset date of January 1, 2011 but later
amended that alleged onset date to June 5, 2012. (Tr. 11).
These applications were denied initially and again upon
reconsideration. (Tr. 65-76).
Plaintiff's applications were denied, Plaintiff requested
an administrative hearing on her applications, and this
hearing request was granted. (Tr. 126). Thereafter, on
September 23, 2014, the SSA held an administrative hearing on
Plaintiff's applications. (Tr. 28-64). At this hearing,
Plaintiff was present and was represented by Mark Maske.
Id. Plaintiff and Vocational Expert
(“VE”) Dr. Magrowski testified at this hearing.
January 6, 2015, after the administrative hearing, the ALJ
entered a fully unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff's
applications. (Tr. 8-24). The ALJ found Plaintiff met the
insured status requirements of the Act through March 31,
2015. (Tr. 13, Finding 1). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had
not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity
(“SGA”) since June 5, 2012, her amended alleged
onset date. (Tr. 13, Finding 2). The ALJ determined Plaintiff
had the following severe impairments: fibromyalgia, migraine
headaches, and depression. (Tr. 13-15, 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. 15-17, Finding 4).
determined Plaintiff was thirty-nine (39) years old, which is
defined as a “younger person” under 20 C.F.R.
§ 416.963(c) (2008) (SSI) and 20 C.F.R. §
404.1563(c) (2008) (DIB). (Tr. 22, Finding 7). As for her
education, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had at least a high
school education and was able to communicate in English. (Tr.
22, Finding 8).
then evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints and
assessed her Residual Functional Capacity
(“RFC”). (Tr. 17-22, Finding 5). After assessing
her subjective complaints, the ALJ determined her allegations
were not entirely credible and found she retained the
After careful consideration of the entire record, I find that
the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform
light work as defined in 20 CR 404.1567(b) except that she is
limited to work that involves simple tasks with simple
instructions of a nature that can be learned within a short
demonstration period of up to thirty days. The claimant can
maintain concentration, persistence, and pace in this limited
range of tasks for two hours at a time before taking a
normally scheduled break and returning to work.
Id. The ALJ then evaluated Plaintiff's Past
Relevant Work (“PRW”). (Tr. 22, Finding 6).
Considering his RFC, the ALJ determined Plaintiff could not
perform any of her PRW.
also considered whether Plaintiff retained the capacity to
perform other work existing in significant numbers in the
national economy. (Tr. 23, Finding 10). The VE testified at
the administrative hearing regarding this issue. Id.
Based upon that testimony, the ALJ determined Plaintiff
retained the capacity to perform the following three
occupations: (1) mail clerk (light, unskilled) with 75, 000
such jobs in the national economy; (2) office helper (light,
unskilled) with 80, 000 such jobs in the national economy;
and (3) cashier II (light, unskilled) with 1, 000, 000 such
jobs in the national economy. (Tr. 23). Based upon this
finding, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not been under a
disability, as defined in the Act, from her alleged onset
date of June 5, 2012. Id.
Plaintiff requested the review of the Appeals Council. On
April 26, 2016, the Appeals Council denied this request for
review. (Tr. 1-3). On June 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed her
Complaint in this matter. ECF No. 1. The Parties consented to
the jurisdiction of this Court on June 21, 2016. ECF No. 5.