United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
BARRY A. BRYANT, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Bradley (“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 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 January 11,
2013 (DIB) and on January 28, 2013 (SSI). (Tr. 13). In his
applications, Plaintiff alleges being disabled due to
problems with his back, neck, and feet; eight ruptured discs
in his back; surgery on both feet; and neck problems. (Tr.
214). Plaintiff alleges an onset date of May 1, 2012. (Tr.
13). These applications were denied initially and again upon
reconsideration. (Tr. 64-113).
Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on his denied
applications. (Tr. 142-143). This hearing request was
granted, and Plaintiff's administrative hearing was held
on June 10, 2014 in Texarkana, Arkansas. (Tr. 34-63).
Plaintiff was present and was represented by counsel.
Id. Plaintiff and a Vocational Expert
(“VE”) testified at this hearing. Id.
to this hearing, on June 17, 2015, the ALJ entered a fully
unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff's disability
applications. (Tr. 10-29). In that decision, the ALJ found
Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Act
through June 30, 2015. (Tr. 15, Finding 1). The ALJ
determined Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial Gainful
Activity (“SGA”) since May 1, 2012, his alleged
onset date. (Tr. 15-16, Finding 2). The ALJ determined
Plaintiff has the following severe impairments: chronic pain
syndrome status/post neck and back surgery and diabetes
mellitus. (Tr. 16-17, 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. 17-18, Finding 4).
decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective
complaints and determined his RFC. (Tr. 18-26, Finding 5). In
this decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective
complaints and determined his RFC. Id. Second, the
ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform the
I find that the claimant has the residual functional capacity
to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and
416.967(b). That is, he can lift and/or carry 20 pounds
occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. He is not limited in
pushing and/or pulling with his upper or lower extremities.
He can sit, stand, and/or walk for about 6 hours in an 8-hour
workday. He can occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch,
crawl, and climb ramps and stairs, but cannot climb ladders,
ropes, or scaffolds. He has no manipulative, visual,
communicative, or environmental limitations.
then evaluated Plaintiff's Past Relevant Work
(“PRW”) and determined Plaintiff had no PRW
during the relevant time period. (Tr. 26-27, Finding 6). The
ALJ determined Plaintiff was forty-seven (47) years old on
his alleged disability date. (Tr. 27, Finding 7). Such a
person is categorized as a “younger person”
pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(c) and 20 C.F.R. §
416.963(c). The ALJ also determined Plaintiff had at least a
high school education was able to communicate in English.
(Tr. 27, Finding 8).
then determined whether Plaintiff retained the capacity to
perform other work existing in significant numbers in the
national economy. (Tr. 28, Finding 10). The VE testified at
the administrative hearing regarding this issue. Id.
Notably, the ALJ determined that a hypothetical person with
Plaintiff's age, education, work experience, and RFC
retained the capacity to perform work as the following: (1)
poultry dresser (light, unskilled) with 1, 800 such jobs in
Arkansas and 40, 000 such jobs in the United States; (2)
arcade attendant (light, unskilled) with 300 such jobs in
Arkansas and 64, 000 such jobs in the United States; and (3)
poultry eviscerator (light, unskilled) with 2, 000 such jobs
in Arkansas and 40, 000 such jobs in the United States. (Tr.
28). Accordingly, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the
capacity to perform this other work. Id. Based upon
this finding, the ALJ then found Plaintiff had not been under
a disability, as defined in the Act, from May 1, 2012 through
the date of his decision or through June 17, 2015. (Tr. 29,
sought review with the Appeals Council. (Tr. 1-3). On June
20, 2016, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request
for review. Id. On July 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed
his Complaint in this case. ECF No. 1. Both Parties have
filed appeal briefs and consented to the jurisdiction of this
Court. ECF Nos. 11-12. This case is now ready for decision.