United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Harrison Division
ROGER A. BREUER PLAINTIFF
NANCY A. BERRYHILL Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT
BARRY A. BRYANT U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
A. Breuer (“Plaintiff”) brings this action
pursuant to § 205(g) of Title II of the Social Security
Act (“The Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2006),
seeking judicial review of a final decision of the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
(“SSA”) denying his applications for Supplemental
Security Income (“SSI”), Disability Insurance
Benefits (“DIB”), 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 his disability applications on April 25,
2013 (DIB) and on May 6, 2013 (SSI). (Tr. 10). Plaintiff
alleges he is disabled due to epilepsy, depression, pain
disorder, mild scoliosis, “disorder of written
expression, ” and borderline personality disorder. (Tr.
265). Plaintiff alleges an onset date of November 11, 2011.
(Tr. 10). These applications were denied initially and again
upon reconsideration. (Tr. 108-111).
requested an administrative hearing on his applications, and
this hearing request was granted. (Tr. 197-222).
Plaintiff's administrative hearing was held on April 15,
2014 in Harrison, Arkansas. (Tr. 28-53). Plaintiff was
present and was represented by Frederick Spencer at this
hearing. Id. Plaintiff and Vocational Expert
(“VE”) Sarah Moore testified at this hearing.
Id. On the date of this hearing, Plaintiff was
thirty-two (32) years old, which is defined as a
“younger person” under 20 C.F.R. §
404.1563(c) (2008) (DIB) and 20 C.F.R. §
416.963(c)(2008) (SSI). (Tr. 35). As for his education,
Plaintiff also testified at this hearing that he had obtained
his GED. (Tr. 35).
April 2, 2015, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision
denying Plaintiff's disability applications. (Tr. 7-22).
In this decision, the ALJ found Plaintiff met the insured
status requirements of the Act through December 31, 2012.
(Tr. 12, Finding 1). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had not
engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity (“SGA”)
since November 11, 2011, his alleged onset date. (Tr. 12,
Finding 2). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had the following
severe impairments: epilepsy, mild scoliosis, pain disorder,
borderline personality disorder, and major depressive
disorder (recurrent, moderate). (Tr. 12, Finding 3). The ALJ
also determined, however, that Plaintiff did not have an
impairment or a combination of impairments that met or
medically equaled one of the listed impairments in the
Listings of Impairments in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of
Regulations No. 4 (“Listings”). (Tr. 13-14,
decision, the ALJ also evaluated Plaintiff's subjective
complaints and determined his Residual Functional Capacity
(“RFC”). (Tr. 14-20, Finding 5). First, the ALJ
evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints and allegedly
disabling symptoms. Id. Second, the ALJ reviewed all
the evidence in the record and hearing testimony and
determined Plaintiff's RFC. Id. Specifically,
the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the RFC to perform the
After careful consideration of the entire record, the
undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual
functional capacity to perform medium work as defined in 20
CFR 404.1567(c) and 416.967(c) except that the claimant must
avoid all exposure to hazards including moving machinery and
unprotected heights. He is able to perform work where
interpersonal contact is incidental to the work performed;
complexity of tasks is learned and performed by rote, few
variables and little judgment. Supervision required is
simple, direct and concrete.
then considered Plaintiff's Past Relevant Work
(“PRW”). (Tr. 20, Finding 6). Plaintiff and the
VE testified at the administrative hearing regarding this
issue. Id. Based upon that testimony, the ALJ
determined Plaintiff was unable to perform his PRW.
Id. The ALJ also considered whether Plaintiff
retained the capacity to perform other work existing in
significant numbers in the national economy. (Tr. 21, Finding
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 representative occupations: (1) dishwasher (medium,
unskilled) with 1, 200 such jobs in Arkansas and 188, 800
such jobs in the nation; (2) machine tender (light,
unskilled) with 2, 700 such jobs in Arkansas and 267, 000
such jobs in the nation; and (3) inspector (light, unskilled)
with 800 such jobs in Arkansas and 63, 000 such jobs in the
nation. (Tr. 21). Based upon this testimony, the ALJ
determined Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as
defined by the Act, from November 11, 2011 (alleged onset
date) through April 2, 2015 (ALJ's decision date). (Tr.
22, Finding 11).
requested that the Appeals Council's review the ALJ's
unfavorable decision. On April 18, 2016, the Appeals Council
denied this request. On June 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed the
present appeal. ECF No. 1. The Parties consented to the
jurisdiction of this Court on June 8, 2016. ECF No. 5. Both
Parties have filed appeal briefs. ECF Nos. 10-11. This case
is now ready for decision.