United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HON.
BARRY A. BRYANT U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Doris
Johnson, (“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
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 application for SSI on February 12,
2015. (Tr. 24). In this application, Plaintiff alleges being
disabled due to high blood pressure, glaucoma, anemia,
arthritis, and knee and ankle pain. (Tr. 177). This
application was denied initially and again upon
reconsideration. (Tr. 24). Thereafter, Plaintiff requested an
administrative hearing, and that hearing request was granted.
(Tr. 91-93).
Plaintiff's
administrative hearing was held on November 1, 2016. (Tr.
36-56). At this hearing, Plaintiff was present and was
represented by counsel, Greg Giles. Id. Plaintiff
and Vocational Expert (“VE”) Wilfred Roux
testified at the hearing. Id. At the time of the
hearing, Plaintiff was forty-six (46) years old and had a
sixth grade education. (Tr. 40-41).
Following
the hearing, on February 3, 2017, the ALJ entered an
unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff's application for
SSI. (Tr. 24-31). In this decision, the ALJ found Plaintiff
had not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity
(“SGA”) since February 12, 2015. (Tr. 26, Finding
1). The ALJ also found Plaintiff had the following severe
impairments: lumbar disc disease, hypertension, glaucoma,
depression, and anxiety. (Tr. 26, Finding 2). Despite being
severe, the ALJ determined those 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. 26, Finding 3).
In this
decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective
complaints and determined her RFC. (Tr. 27-29, 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 RFC to perform light work with
occasional postural limitations. Id. Additionally,
the ALJ found Plaintiff can maintain concentration and
attention sufficiently to perform simple work tasks requiring
little independent judgment and minimal variations, and can
occasionally interact with coworkers, supervisors, and the
public. Id.
The ALJ
then evaluated Plaintiff's Past Relevant Work
(“PRW”). (Tr. 29, Finding 5). The ALJ determined
Plaintiff was not capable of performing her PRW. Id.
The ALJ, however, also determined there was other work
existing in significant numbers in the national economy
Plaintiff could perform. (Tr. 30, Finding 9). The ALJ based
this determination upon the testimony of the VE. Id.
Specifically, the VE testified that given all Plaintiff's
vocational factors, a hypothetical individual would be able
to perform the requirements of representative occupations
such as housekeeper with approximately 929, 540 such jobs in
the nation and surveillance system monitor with approximately
113, 020 such jobs in the nation.. Id. Based upon
this finding, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not been under
a disability, as defined in the Act, since February 12, 2015.
(Tr. 30, Finding 10).
Thereafter,
Plaintiff requested the Appeals Council's review of the
ALJ's decision. (Tr. 134-136). The Appeals Council denied
this request for review. (Tr. 1-6). On December 21, 2017,
Plaintiff filed the present appeal. ECF No. 1. Both Parties
have filed appeal briefs. ECF Nos. 12, 13. This case is now
ready for decision.
2.
Applicable Law:
It is
well-established that a claimant for Social Security
disability benefits has the burden of proving his or her
disability by establishing a physical or mental disability
that lasted at least one year and that prevents him or her
from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. See
Cox v. Apfel, 160 F.3d 1203, 1206 (8th Cir. 1998); 42
U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act
defines a “physical or mental impairment” as
“an impairment that results from anatomical,
physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are
demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory
diagnostic techniques.” 42 U.S.C. §§
423(d)(3), 1382(3)(c). A plaintiff must show that his or her
disability, not simply his or her impairment, has lasted for
at least twelve consecutive months. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 423(d)(1)(A).
To
determine whether the adult claimant suffers from a
disability, the Commissioner uses the familiar five-step
sequential evaluation. He determines: (1) whether the
claimant is presently engaged in a “substantial gainful
activity”; (2) whether the claimant has a severe
impairment that significantly limits the claimant's
physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities;
(3) whether the claimant has an impairment that meets or
equals a presumptively disabling impairment listed in the
regulations (if so, the claimant is disabled without regard
to age, education, and work experience); (4) whether the
claimant has the Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) to
perform his or her past relevant work; and (5) if the
claimant cannot perform the past work, the burden shifts to
the Commissioner to prove that there are other jobs in the
national economy that the claimant can perform. See
Cox, 160 F.3d at 1206; 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520(a)-(f). The fact finder only considers the
plaintiff's age, education, and work experience in light
of his or her RFC if the final stage of this analysis is
reached. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520,
416.920 (2003).
3.
...