United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
DELSHON MARICE TYOUS, SR. PLAINTIFF
NANCY A. BERRYHILL Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT
BARRY A. BRYANT, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Marice Tyous, Sr. (“Plaintiff”) brings this
action pro se 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 his applications
for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”),
Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”), and a
period of disability under Titles II and XVI of the Act.
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. 4. Pursuant to this authority, the Court
issues this memorandum opinion and orders the entry of a
final judgment in this matter.
protectively filed his disability applications on May 18,
2007. (Tr. 10). In these applications, Plaintiff alleges he
was disabled due to lower back pain and pain in his lower
right leg. (Tr. 666). Plaintiff alleges an onset date of
November 15, 2006. (Tr. 10). These applications were denied
initially and again upon reconsideration. (Tr. 45-48).
Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on his
applications, and this hearing request was granted. (Tr.
20-44). Plaintiff's first administrative hearing was held
on February 18, 2009 in Texarkana, Arkansas. (Tr. 20-44).
Thereafter, on May 21, 2009, the ALJ entered a fully
unfavorable decision on Plaintiff's disability
applications. (Tr. 7-19). The ALJ then entered two additional
unfavorable disability determinations. (Tr. 372-402).
Plaintiff sought review of those disability determinations,
and the ALJ subsequently held two administrative hearings.
on November 17, 2016, the ALJ entered a fully unfavorable
decision on Plaintiff's disability applications. (Tr.
240-253). In this decision, the ALJ found Plaintiff met the
insured status requirements of the Act through December 31,
2011. (Tr. 246, Finding 1). The ALJ found Plaintiff had not
engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity (“SGA”)
since November 15, 2006, his alleged onset date. (Tr. 246,
Finding 2). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had the following
severe impairment: left spinal stenosis. (Tr. 246-247,
Finding 3). 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. 248, Finding 4).
decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective
complaints and determined his RFC. (Tr. 248-251, Finding 5).
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 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except he can occasionally
stoop, crouch, crawl and kneel; cannot climb ladders, ropes,
or scaffolds; can occasionally climb stairs and ramps; is
unable to balance on narrow or moving surfaces, but he is
able to balance frequently on level surfaces; and cannot work
in proximity to unprotected heights and dangerous moving
determined Plaintiff was thirty-three (33) years old on his
alleged disability onset date. (Tr. 251, Finding 7). Such an
individual is characterized as a “younger
individual” under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(c) and
416.963(c). Id. The ALJ also determined Plaintiff
had at least a high school education and was able to
communicate in English. (Tr. 251, Finding 8).
evaluated Plaintiff's Past Relevant Work
(“PRW”) and determined he was unable to perform
any of his PRW. (Tr. 251, Finding 6). The ALJ did, however,
determine Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform other
work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.
(Tr. 251-252, Finding 10). The VE testified at the
administrative hearing regarding this issue. Id.
Based upon that testimony, the ALJ found Plaintiff retained
the capacity to perform unskilled, light work such as work as
a hotel housekeeper with 138, 073 such jobs in the nation and
cashier II with 823, 360 such jobs in the nation.
Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform this other work,
the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not been under a disability,
as defined in the Act, from November 15, 2006 through the
date of his decision or through November 22, 2016. (Tr. 252,
Finding 11). Thereafter, the ALJ entered a follow-up
unfavorable decision, entitled “Amended Decision,
” adopting the same findings as were outlined in the
November 17, 2016 decision. (Tr. 217-230). That Amended
Decision was entered on April 26, 2017. Id.
requested that the Appeals Council's review the ALJ's
unfavorable disability determination. (Tr. 216). On August
22, 2017, Plaintiff filed the present pro se appeal.
ECF No. 1. The Parties consented to the jurisdiction of this
Court on August 22, 2017. ECF No. 4. Both Parties ...