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.

Reed v. Berryhill

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fort Smith Division

February 15, 2018

DENISE A. REED PLAINTIFF
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

         Denise A. Reed (“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 Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”), Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”), and period of disability under Titles II and XVI of 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. 7. 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 her disability applications on August 21, 2014. (Tr. 13). In these applications, Plaintiff alleges being disabled due to tennis elbow (right), high blood pressure, diabetes, and neuropathy in her feet. (Tr. 252). Plaintiff alleges an onset date of June 28, 2014. (Tr. 13). These applications were denied initially and again upon reconsideration. (Tr. 101-122).

         Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on March 3, 2015. (Tr. 13). This hearing request was granted, and Plaintiff's administrative hearing was held on July 1, 2015 in Fort Smith, Arkansas. (Tr. 74-100). At this hearing, Plaintiff was present and was represented by David Harp. Id. Plaintiff and Vocational Expert (“VE”) Debra Steele testified at this hearing. Id. During this hearing, Plaintiff testified she was forty-six (46) years old, which is defined as a “younger person” under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(c) (2008). (Tr. 80). As for her education, Plaintiff testified she completed high school. (Tr. 81).

         On February 5, 2016, after the administrative hearing, the ALJ entered a fully unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff's disability applications. (Tr. 10-20). In this decision, the ALJ found Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Act through December 31, 2016. (Tr. 15, Finding 1). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity (“SGA”) since June 28, 2014, her alleged onset date. (Tr. 15, Finding 2). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had the following severe impairments:

Essential hypertension, diabetes mellitus with peripheral neuropathy, osteoarthritis, degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine status post epidural steroid injections, chronic low back pain syndrome RLE and epicondylitis status post surgery (20 CFR 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c)).

(Tr. 15, 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. 16, Finding 4).

         In this decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints and determined her RFC. (Tr. 16-20, 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 the full range of sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a).

Id.

         The ALJ then evaluated Plaintiff's Past Relevant Work (“PRW”). (Tr. 20, Finding 6). Specifically, the ALJ determined Plaintiff's PRW included work as a telephone solicitor. Id. Considering her RFC and other vocational factors, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform this PRW. (Tr. 20, Finding 6). As such, because Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform her PRW, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not been under a disability (as defined by the Act) at any time from June 28, 2014 through the date of his decision or through February 5, 2016. (Tr. 20, Finding 7).

         Plaintiff sought review with the Appeals Council. (Tr. 9). On January 13, 2017, the Appeals Council denied her request for review. Id. On February 2, 2017, Plaintiff filed her Complaint in this action. ECF No. 1. Both Parties have filed appeal brief and have consented to the ...


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.