United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
BARRY A. BRYANT, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
McGlothlin (“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. 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 application on January 24,
2011. (Tr. 18, 355). In this application, Plaintiff alleges
being disabled due to depression and psychotic features. (Tr.
392). Plaintiff alleges an onset date of October 1, 2010.
(Tr. 18). This application was denied initially and again
upon reconsideration. (Tr. 113-114).
had three administrative hearings: one on May 1, 2012; one on
October 3, 2014; and one on August 16, 2016. (Tr. 40-112).
After the 2012 and 2014 hearings, the ALJ issued an
unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff's disability
application. (Tr. 136-163). After reviewing the ALJ's
opinion, however, the Appeals Council reversed and remanded
this case back to the ALJ for further administrative review.
(Tr. 173-175). As a part of this remand order, the Appeals
Council specifically directed the ALJ to evaluate “the
treating and nontreating source opinions . . . and . . .
explain the weight given to such opinion evidence.”
then held the third administrative hearing on August 16,
2016. (Tr. 40-72). Subsequent to this hearing, the ALJ
entered a second unfavorable decision. (Tr. 15-31). In this
decision, the ALJ found Plaintiff had not engaged in
Substantial Gainful Activity (“SGA”) since
January 24, 2011, her application date. (Tr. 20, Finding 1).
The ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments:
major depressive disorder, anxiety, bilateral trigger thumb
and flexor tenosynovitis, asthma and learning disorder. (Tr.
20-23, Finding 2). 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.
22-23, Finding 3).
decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective
complaints and determined her RFC. (Tr. 23-29, Finding 4).
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 medium work as defined in 20
CFR 416.967(c). She can occasionally lift/carry 50 pounds, 25
pounds frequently, and can push/pull as much as can
lift/carry; she cannot perform tasks requiring frequent rapid
and repetitive flexion extension of the bilateral wrists; she
can understand, remember and carry out simple routine tasks.
her RFC, the ALJ determined Plaintiff did not retain the
capacity to perform any of her PRW. (Tr. 29, Finding 5). The
ALJ then determined whether Plaintiff retained the capacity
to perform other work existing in significant numbers in the
national economy. (Tr. 30, Finding 9). The VE testified at
the administrative hearing regarding this issue. Id.
upon that testimony, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained
the capacity to perform the requirements of representative
occupations such as the following: (1) coffee maker (medium,
unskilled) with 402, 037 such jobs in the nation; (2) patient
transporter (medium, unskilled) with 71, 182 such jobs in the
nation; and (3) launder laborer (medium, unskilled) with 335,
568 such jobs in the nation. (Tr. 30). 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 the date her application
was filed until the date of the ALJ's decision or until
November 3, 2016. (Tr. 30, Finding 10).
then requested the Appeals Council's review of this
unfavorable decision. (Tr. 10-14). The Appeals Council denied
this request for review. (Tr. 1-3). Then, on March 3, 2017,
Plaintiff filed her Complaint in this action. ECF No. 1. Both
Parties have filed appeal briefs and have consented to the
jurisdiction of this Court. ECF Nos. 7, 12-13. This case is
now ready for decision.