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.

Bays v. Berryhill

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division

June 13, 2017

CHARLES BAYS PLAINTIFF
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration[1] DEFENDANT

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

         Charles Bays (“Plaintiff”) brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denying his claim for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act (“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).[2] Pursuant to this authority, the Court issues this memorandum opinion and orders the entry of a final judgment in this matter.

         1.Background:

         Plaintiff protectively filed his disability application for DIB on March 15, 2013. (ECF No. 10, pp. 18, 213). In his application, Plaintiff alleges being disabled due to neck injury, back injury/disentegrated disc, leg problems, shoulder injury, ankle injury, and limited mobility. (ECF No. 10, p. 226). Plaintiff alleges an onset date of February 10, 2012. (ECF No. 10, pp. 18, 213). This application was denied initially and again upon reconsideration. (ECF No. 10 pp. 105-33).

         Thereafter, Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on his denied application, and this hearing request was granted. (ECF No. 10 p. 152). Plaintiff's administrative hearing was held on October 8, 2014, in Little Rock, Arkansas. (ECF No. 10, pp. 43-104). Plaintiff was present via video teleconference from Hot Springs, Arkansas and was represented by Sherri McDonough. Id. Plaintiff and vocational expert (“VE”) Charles Dwight Turner testified at this hearing. Id. At the time of this hearing, Plaintiff was forty-six years old, which is defined as a “younger person” under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(c). (ECF No. 10, p. 50). As for his level of education, Plaintiff completed the eleventh grade. Id.

         After this hearing, on March 4, 2015, the ALJ entered a partially favorable decision denying Plaintiff's application for DIB for a period prior to January 15, 2014. (ECF No. 10, pp. 14-29). In this decision, the ALJ found Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Act through December 31, 2017. (ECF No. 10, p. 20, Finding 1). The ALJ found Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity (“SGA”) since February 10, 2012, his alleged onset date. (ECF No. 10, p. 20, Finding 2). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had the following severe impairments since the alleged onset date of February 10, 2012: degenerative disc disease, history of right ankle fracture, osteoarthritis in knee and shoulder, post history of subscapularis tear, and obesity. (ECF No. 10, p. 20, Finding 3). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had the following severe impairments beginning on the established onset date of disability of January 15, 2014: degenerative disc disease, history of right ankle fracture, post history of right subscapularis tear, osteoarthritis, obesity, major depressive disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder. (ECF No. 10, p. 21, Finding 4). Despite being severe, the ALJ determined these impairments did not meet or medically equal the requirements of any of the Listings of Impairments in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Part 404 (“Listings”). (ECF No. 10, pp. 21-22, Finding 5).

         The ALJ then considered Plaintiff's Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”) prior to January 15, 2014. (ECF No. 10, pp. 22-26, Finding 6). First, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints and found his claimed limitations for the period prior to January 15, 2014, were not entirely credible. Id. Second, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the RFC to perform:

sedentary work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(a) except he could only occasionally perform stooping, crouching, kneeling, balancing, and other postural activities. He could reach overhead frequently using the dominant upper extremity. Mentally, he was limited to unskilled work, which is simple, routine, and repetitive tasks with supervision that is simple, direct, and concrete. He also required the option to use an assistive device to and from the workplace.

Id. The ALJ then considered Plaintiff's RFC beginning on January 15, 2014. (ECF No. 10, pp. 26-, Finding 7). The ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the RFC to perform:

sedentary work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(a) except he could only occasionally perform stooping, crouching, kneeling, balancing, and other postural activities. He could reach overhead frequently using the dominant upper extremity. Mentally, he was limited to unskilled work, which is simple, routine, and repetitive tasks with supervision that is simple, direct, and concrete. He also required the option to use an assistive device to and from the workplace. In addition, due to pain and psychologically-based, symptoms, [Plaintiff] would be unable to maintain attention and concentration for up to 20% of an 8-hour day.

Id.

         The ALJ then determined Plaintiff was unable to perform any Past Relevant Work (“PRW”). (ECF No. 10, p. 27, Finding 8). The VE testified at the administrative hearing regarding this issue. (ECF No. 10, pp. 97-103). Based on Plaintiff's age, education, work experience, and RFC prior to January 15, 2014, the ALJ determined that prior to January 15, 2014, there were jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy Plaintiff could perform, such as an assembly worker, with approximately one hundred sixty thousand (160, 000) jobs in the national economy and approximately fifteen thousand (15, 000) jobs in the regional economy, and as an inspector/table worker, with approximately one hundred sixty thousand (160, 000) jobs in the national economy and approximately fifteen thousand (15, 000) jobs in the regional economy (ECF No. 10, p. 28, Finding 12). Based on Plaintiff's age, education, work experience, and RFC beginning on January 15, 2014, the ALJ determined that beginning on January 15, 2014, there were no jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy Plaintiff could perform. (ECF No. 10, pp. 28-29, Finding 13). Because jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy which Plaintiff could perform prior to January 15, 2014, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined by the Act, prior to January 15, 2014, but became disabled on that date and continued to be disabled through March 4, 2015, the date of the ALJ's decision. (ECF No. 10, p. 29, Finding 14).

         Thereafter, on April 3, 2015, Plaintiff requested review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council. (ECF No. 10, p. 10). The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request on March 3, 2016. (ECF No. 10, pp. 5-9). On April 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed the present appeal with this Court. (ECF No. 1). The Parties consented to ...


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.