United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Harrison Division
TALONNA G. JONES PLAINTIFF
NANCY A. BERRYHILL Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT
BARRY A. BRYANT U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
G. Jones (“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 application for Supplemental
Security Income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of 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. 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 application on July 30,
2013. (Tr. 22). In this application, Plaintiff alleges she
was disabled due to mental problems and depression. (Tr.
205). Plaintiff alleges an onset date of January 2, 2010.
(Tr. 22). This application was denied initially and again on
reconsideration. (Tr. 69-81).
Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on her
application, and this hearing request was granted. (Tr.
106-116). An administrative hearing was held on September 1,
2015 in Harrison, Arkansas. (Tr. 39-68). At this hearing,
Plaintiff was present and was represented by counsel,
Frederick Spencer. Id. Plaintiff and Vocational
Expert (“VE”) Jim Spraggins testified at this
hearing. Id. On the date of this hearing, Plaintiff
was twenty-seven (27) years old, which is defined as a
“younger person” under 20 C.F.R. §
416.963(c) (SSI), and testified she had completed high school
with special education classes. (Tr. 44).
September 19, 2015, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision
on Plaintiff's disability application. (Tr. 19-33). In
this decision, the ALJ found Plaintiff had not engaged in
Substantial Gainful Activity (“SGA”) since July
30, 2013, her application date. (Tr. 24, Finding 1). The ALJ
determined Plaintiff had the following severe impairments:
morbid obesity, depression, and anxiety. (Tr. 24, Finding 2).
The ALJ, however, also determined Plaintiff did not have an
impairment or combination of impairments that met or
medically equaled one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R.
Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (Tr. 24-26, Finding 3).
decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective
complaints and determined her RFC. (Tr. 26-31, Finding 4).
First, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective
complaints and determined they were not entirely credible.
Id. Second, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained
the RFC for the following:
After careful consideration of the entire record, the
undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual
functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20
CFR 416.967(b) except she can perform work that is limited to
simple, routine, and repetitive tasks involving only simple,
work-related decisions with few, if any, workplace changes
and no more than occasional contact with coworkers,
supervisors, and the general public.
evaluated Plaintiff's Past Relevant Work
(“PRW”) and determined she had no PRW. (Tr. 31,
Finding 5). The ALJ did, however, determine Plaintiff
retained the capacity to perform other work existing in
significant numbers in the national economy. (Tr. 32-33,
Finding 9). The ALJ based this determination upon the
testimony of the VE. Id.
the VE testified that a hypothetical person with
Plaintiff's limitations retained the capacity to perform
work such as the following: (1) price marker (light,
unskilled) with 4, 300 such jobs in Arizona and 496, 000 such
jobs in the nation; (2) plastics molding machine tender
(light, unskilled) with 2, 400 such jobs in Arizona and 168,
000 such jobs in the nation; and (3) routing clerk (light,
unskilled) with 800 such jobs in Arizona and 74, 000 such
jobs in the nation. (Tr. 32-33, Finding 9). Because Plaintiff
retained the capacity to perform this other work existing in
significant numbers in the national economy, the ALJ
determined Plaintiff was not under a “disability,
” as defined by the Act, at any time through the date
of his decision. (Tr. 33, Finding 10).
Plaintiff requested that the Appeals Council reviewed the
ALJ's unfavorable disability determination. (Tr. 18). On
September 6, 2016, the Appeals Council declined to review the
ALJ's disability determination. (Tr. 1-4). On October 14,
2016, Plaintiff filed the present appeal. ECF No. 1. The
Parties consented to the jurisdiction of this Court on
October 17, 2016. ECF No. 5. Both Parties have filed appeal
briefs. ECF Nos. 11-12. This case is now ready for decision.