United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division
BARRY A. BRYANT U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Boatman (“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 a period of
disability, Disability Insurance Benefits
(“DIB”), and Supplemental Security Income
(“SSI”) 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. 7. 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 January 8,
2013. (Tr. 24, 274-288). In her applications, Plaintiff
alleges being disabled due to bipolar disorder, depression,
and anxiety. (Tr. 339). Plaintiff alleges an onset date of
January 1, 2011. (Tr. 24). Her applications were denied
initially and again upon reconsideration. (Tr. 81-130).
requested an administrative hearing on September 24, 2013.
(Tr. 152). This hearing request was granted, and
Plaintiff's administrative hearing was held on April 15,
2015 in Hot Springs, Arkansas. (Tr. 41-80). At this hearing,
Plaintiff was present but was not represented by counsel.
Id. Plaintiff, Vocational Expert (“VE”)
Stephanie Ford, and a witness for Plaintiff testified at this
hearing. Id. During this hearing, Plaintiff
testified she was forty-four (44) years old, which is defined
as a “younger person” under 20 C.F.R. §
404.1563(c) (DIB) and 20 C.F.R. § 416.965(c) (SSI). (Tr.
50). As for her education, Plaintiff testified she started
the twelfth grade in school but did not graduate.
11, 2015, after the administrative hearing, the ALJ entered a
fully unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff's
applications. (Tr. 21-35). The ALJ determined Plaintiff met
the insured status requirements of the Act through December
31, 2016. (Tr. 26, Finding 1). The ALJ determined Plaintiff
had not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity
(“SGA”) since January 1, 2011, her alleged onset
date. (Tr. 26, Finding 2). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had
the following severe impairments: depression, anxiety, and
bipolar disorder. (Tr. 26-27, 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. 27-28, Finding 4).
decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective
complaints and determined her RFC. (Tr. 28-33, 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 capacity to perform the following:
After careful consideration of the entire record, the
undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual
functional capacity to perform a full range of work at all
exertional levels but with the following nonexertional
limitations: The claimant is limited to simple, routine work
with simple instructions and only occasional contact with
supervisors, coworkers, and the general public.
evaluated Plaintiff's Past Relevant Work
(“PRW”) and found Plaintiff was unable to perform
any of her PRW. (Tr. 33-34, Finding 6). The ALJ then
considered whether Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform
other work existing in significant numbers in the national
economy. (Tr. 34-35, Finding 10). The VE testified at the
administrative hearing regarding this issue. Id.
upon this testimony and considering her RFC, the ALJ
determined Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform the
following occupations: (1) dishwasher (medium, unskilled)
with 18, 000 such jobs in the region and 191, 000 such jobs
in the nation; and (2) housekeeper (light, unskilled) with
13, 000 such jobs in the region and 132, 000 such jobs in the
nation. (Tr. 34). Because Plaintiff retained the capacity to
perform this other work, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not
been under a disability, as defined by the Act, at any time
from January 1, 2011 through the date of her decision or
through June 11, 2015. (Tr. 35, Finding 11).
sought review with the Appeals Council. On September 1, 2016,
the Appeals Council denied this request for review. (Tr.
1-4). On October 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in
this case. ECF No. 1. Both Parties have filed appeal briefs
and have consented to the jurisdiction of this Court. ECF
Nos. 7, 11-12. This case is now ready for determination.