Smith v. Berryhill

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          HON. BARRY A. BRYANT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Perry Don Smith (“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 his applications for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”), Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”), and a period of disability under Titles II and 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. 5. 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 his disability applications on July 14, 2014 (DIB) and on February 8, 2016 (SSI). (Tr. 20). In these applications, Plaintiff alleges being disabled due to diabetes; morbid obesity; left leg edema; severe arthritis in both knees; pins, plates, and rods in left leg and hip; and surgery on both knees. (Tr. 199). Plaintiff alleges an onset date of November 1, 2013. (Tr. 20). His applications were denied initially and again upon reconsideration. (Tr. 65-89).

         Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on his denied applications. (Tr. 100-101). This hearing request was granted, and Plaintiff's hearing was held on August 24, 2016 in Alexandria, Louisiana. (Tr. 35-64). At this hearing, Plaintiff was present and was represented by Greg Giles. Id. Plaintiff and Vocational Expert (“VE”) Mr. Peterson testified at this hearing. Id.

         On September 29, 2016, after the administrative hearing, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff's disability applications. (Tr. 17-34). The ALJ determined Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Act through December 31, 2018. (Tr. 22, Finding 1). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity (“SGA”) since November 1, 2013, his alleged onset date. (Tr. 22, Finding 2). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: diabetes mellitus, obesity, and osteoarthritis with chronic pain syndrome. (Tr. 22-23, Finding 3). The ALJ also determined that 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. 23, Finding 4).

         In this decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints and determined his Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”). (Tr. 23-27, Finding 5). First, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff' 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 sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a) except the claimant is limited to occasional climbing of ramps and stairs but no climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds and only occasional balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling.

Id.

         The ALJ determined Plaintiff was thirty-nine (39) years old, which is defined as a “younger individual” under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(c) (2008) and 20 C.F.R. § 416.963(c) (2008), on his alleged disability onset date. (Tr. 27, Finding 7). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had at least a high school education and was able to communicate in English. (Tr. 27, Finding 8).

         The ALJ then evaluated Plaintiff's Past Relevant Work (“PRW”) and determined Plaintiff was unable to perform any of his PRW. (Tr. 27, Finding 6). The ALJ also considered whether Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. (Tr. 27-28, 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 work as a food and beverage order clerk (sedentary, unskilled) with 319, 400 such jobs in the nation and document preparer (sedentary, unskilled) with 27, 600 such jobs in the nation. (Tr. 28). Based upon this finding, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not been under a disability as defined by the Act from November 1, 2013 (alleged onset date) through October 4, 2016 (ALJ's decision date). (Tr. 28, Finding 11).

         Plaintiff sought review with the Appeals Council. On September 25, 2017, the Appeals Council denied this request for review. (Tr. 1-3). On November 2, 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. 5, 12-13.

         2. Ap ...