United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fort Smith Division
BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Porter (“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 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 his SSI application on April 22, 2014.
(Tr. 131). In this application, Plaintiff alleges being
disabled due to migraine headaches. (Tr. 350). Plaintiff
alleges an onset date of January 1, 2013. (Tr. 131-139). His
SSI application was denied initially and again upon
reconsideration. (Tr. 200-221).
requested an administrative hearing on his denied
application, and this hearing request was granted. (Tr. 293).
Plaintiff's hearing was held on October 22, 2015 in
Little Rock, Arkansas. (Tr. 150-182). At this hearing,
Plaintiff was present and was represented by Lisa Douglas.
Id. Plaintiff, a witness for Plaintiff, and
Vocational Expert (“VE”) William David Elmore
testified at this hearing. Id.
February 17, 2016, after the administrative hearing, the ALJ
entered an unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff's
disability application. (Tr. 128-139). The ALJ determined
Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity
(“SGA”) since April 22, 2014, his application
date. (Tr. 133, Finding 1). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had
the following severe impairment: migraines. (Tr. 133-134,
Finding 2). 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. 134, Finding 3).
decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective
complaints and determined his Residual Functional Capacity
(“RFC”). (Tr. 134-138, Finding 4). 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 light work as defined in 20
CFR 416.967(b) except the claimant should avoid hazards such
as unprotected heights or dangerous machinery.
determined Plaintiff was thirty (30) years old, which is
defined as a “younger individual” under 20 C.F.R.
§ 416.963(c) (2008), on his alleged disability onset
date. (Tr. 138, Finding 6). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had
at least a high school education and was able to communicate
in English. (Tr. 138, Finding 7).
then evaluated Plaintiff's Past Relevant Work
(“PRW”) and determined Plaintiff had no PRW. (Tr.
138, Finding 5). The ALJ also considered whether Plaintiff
retained the capacity to perform other work existing in
significant numbers in the national economy. (Tr. 138-139,
Finding 9). 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 Cashier II (light, unskilled) with 10, 000 such jobs in
Arkansas and 1, 000, 000 such jobs in the nation and Cleaner
or Housekeeper (light, unskilled) with 4, 000 such jobs in
Arkansas and 400, 000 such jobs in the nation. Id.
Based upon this finding, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not
been under a disability, as defined by the Act, from April
22, 2014 (application date) through February 17, 2016
(ALJ's decision date). (Tr. 139, Finding 10).
sought review with the Appeals Council. On October 25, 2017,
the Appeals Council denied this request for review. (Tr.
5-8). On December 22, 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, 16-17.