United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
ROSIE B. HAYNES PLAINTIFF
NANCY A. BERRYHILL Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION 
BARRY A. BRYANT, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
B. Haynes (“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 II 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 applications on June 29,
2011. (Tr. 105). In these applications, Plaintiff alleges
being disabled due to glaucoma, a skin condition, and anemia.
(Tr. 287). Plaintiff alleges an onset date of January 1,
2001. (Tr. 105). Her applications were denied initially and
again upon reconsideration. (Tr. 100-101).
requested an administrative hearing, and this hearing request
was granted. In fact, Plaintiff had three administrative
hearings. Plaintiff's first administrative hearing was
held on August 3, 2012. (Tr. 91-99). After that hearing, the
ALJ entered an unfavorable decision on August 12, 2012. (Tr.
102-111). After this decision was entered, the Appeals
Council entered an order directing the ALJ to further develop
the record and consider a psychological assessment dated
August 27, 2012. (Tr. 116-119). Her second administrative
hearing was held on August 4, 2014. (Tr. 85-90). During that
hearing, the ALJ found the record had not been properly
developed and ordered a consultative examination.
this examination had been completed, Plaintiff's third
administrative hearing was held on November 12, 2015 in
Shreveport, Louisiana. (Tr. 42-58). At this third hearing,
Plaintiff was present and was represented by counsel, Greg
Giles. (Tr. 42-58). Plaintiff and Vocational Expert
(“VE”) Juanita Grant testified at this hearing.
to this hearing, the ALJ entered a second hearing decision.
(Tr. 15-34). This decision was partially favorable and
awarded Plaintiff disability benefits as of December 17,
2015. (Tr. 33, Finding 11). However, prior to this date, the
ALJ found Plaintiff was not disabled. (Tr. 15-34).
Specifically, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not engaged in
Substantial Gainful Activity (“SGA”) since her
alleged onset date. (Tr. 22, Finding 1). The ALJ determined
that since her application date of June 29, 2011, she had the
following severe impairments: hypertension, obesity,
depression, anxiety, and borderline intellectual functioning.
(Tr. 22, Finding 2). The ALJ also determined that since her
application date of June 29, 2011, she did not have an
impairment or impairments that met or medically equaled the
requirements of any of the Listings of Impairments in
Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Regulations No. 4
(“Listings”). (Tr. 22-25, Finding 3).
decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective
complaints and determined her RFC. (Tr. 25-32, 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 since the application date, June 29,
2011, the claimant has the residual functional capacity to
perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(b) except she
can understand, remember, and carry out no more than one,
two, or three step instructions. She cannot have strict
production quotas. She is limited to occasional contact with
the general public and coworkers.
her RFC, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had been unable to
perform any of her Past Relevant Work (“PRW”)
since her application date of June 29, 2011. (Tr. 32, Finding
5). The ALJ determined that prior to her established
disability onset date, she was individual closely approaching
advanced age. (Tr. 32, Finding 6). As of December 17, 2015,
the ALJ determined Plaintiff's age category changed to an
individual of advanced age. (Tr. 32, Finding 6). As for her
education, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had a limited
education was able to communicate in English. (Tr. 32,
then considered whether there was other work existing in the
national economy that Plaintiff could perform. (Tr. 32-33,
Finding 9). The Vocational Expert (“VE”)
testified at the administrative hearing regarding this issue.
Id. Based upon that testimony, the ALJ determined
that prior to December 17, 2015, there were jobs
that existed in significant numbers that Plaintiff could have
performed. (Tr. 32-33, Finding 9). Representative occupations
included: (1) housekeeper (light, unskilled) with 929, 540
such jobs in the nation; (2) laundry worker (light,
unskilled) with 929, 540 such jobs in the nation; and (3)
garment sorter (light, unskilled) with 217, 500 such jobs in
the nation. Id. Based upon that testimony, the ALJ
determined Plaintiff was not disabled prior to December 17,
beginning on December 17, 2015, the date her age category
changed, the ALJ determined there were no jobs existing in
significant numbers in the national economy Plaintiff could
perform. (Tr. 33, Finding 10). Thus, as of December 17, 2015,
the ALJ found Plaintiff was disabled. Id. On March
18, 2016, Plaintiff requested the Appeals Council's
review of ...