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.

Taylor v. Berryhill

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, El Dorado Division

June 7, 2018

PAMELA TAYLOR PLAINTIFF
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

         Pamela Taylor (“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 a period of disability and Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II 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 application on June 23, 2014. (Tr. 11). In this application, Plaintiff alleges being disabled due to multiple sclerosis; transverse myelitis; osteoarthritis, fibrmyalgia; chronic pain in her back, neck, lower extremities, and thoracic spine; neuropathy; roto-scoliosis in her lower extremities; depression; degenerative joint and disc disease; and thoracic spine scoliosis. (Tr. 136). Plaintiff alleges an onset date of April 2, 2014. (Tr. 11). Her application was denied initially and again upon reconsideration. (Tr. 47-58).

         Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on her denied application. This hearing request was granted, and Plaintiff's administrative hearing was held on January 19, 2016. (Tr. 22-46). At this hearing, Plaintiff was present and was represented by Greg Giles. Id. Plaintiff, Medical Expert (“ME”) Kweli Amusa, and Vocational Expert (“VE”) Leonard Francois testified at this hearing. Id.

         On March 31, 2016, after the administrative hearing, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff's disability application. (Tr. 8-17). The ALJ determined Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Act through December 31, 2019. (Tr. 13, Finding 1). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity (“SGA”) since April 2, 2014, her alleged onset date. (Tr. 13, Finding 2). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: multiple sclerosis and arthritis. (Tr. 13, Finding 3). The ALJ also determined Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that 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. 13, Finding 4).

         In this decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints and determined her Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”). (Tr. 13-15, Finding 5). First, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints and found they were not entirely credible. Id. Second, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had the following RFC:

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 404.1567(b) except claimant can sit for 30 minutes at a time, and then needs to stand for about 10 minutes before returning to a seated position.

Id. The ALJ determined Plaintiff was fifty-one (51) years old, which is defined as an “individual closely approaching advanced age” under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(d) (2008). (Tr. 16, Finding 7). The ALJ also determined Plaintiff had at least a high school education and was able to communicate in English. (Tr. 16, Finding 8).

         The ALJ then evaluated Plaintiff's Past Relevant Work (“PRW”). (Tr. 15-16, Finding 6). Considering her RFC, the ALJ determined Plaintiff did not retain the capacity to perform her PRW. Id. The ALJ then considered whether Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. (Tr. 16-17, Finding 10). The VE testified at the administrative hearing on this matter. Id.

         Based upon that testimony, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform representative occupations such as appointment clerk (sedentary, semi-skilled) with 121, 000 such jobs in the national economy; receptionist (sedentary, semi-skilled) with 100, 000 such jobs in the national economy; and information clerk (sedentary, semi-skilled) with 96, 000 such jobs in the national economy. (Tr. 16). 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) from April 2, 2014 through the date of her decision or through March 31, 2016. (Tr. 17, Finding 11).

         Plaintiff sought review with the Appeals Council. On June 1, 2017, the Appeals Council denied this request for review. (Tr. 1-3.). On June 30, 2017, 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.

         2.Applicable ...


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.