United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fort Smith Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HON.
BARRY A. BRYANT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Darla
Nichole Henry (“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 Disability
Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and a period of
disability 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.[1] 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 March 13,
2014. (Tr. 14, 172-173). In her application, she alleges
being disabled due to chronic tietze syndrome,
costchondritis, depression, and chronic kidney stones. (Tr.
187). Plaintiff alleges an onset date of March 23, 2011. (Tr.
14). Her application was denied initially and again upon
reconsideration. (Tr. 72-102).
After
Plaintiff's application was denied, Plaintiff requested
an administrative hearing on her application, and this
hearing request was granted. (Tr. 32-71). The ALJ held two
administrative hearings on Plaintiff's case, one on
August 19, 2015 and one on July 12, 2016. Id. The
hearing on July 12, 2016 was held in Hot Springs, Arkansas.
(Tr. 41-71). At this hearing, Plaintiff was present and was
represented by Randy Rainwater. Id. Plaintiff and
Vocational Expert (“VE”) Myrtle Johnson testified
at this hearing. Id.
On
October 7, 2016, after the administrative hearing, the ALJ
entered a fully unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff's
application. (Tr. 11-26). The ALJ found Plaintiff last met
the insured status requirements of the Act on March 31, 2016.
(Tr. 16, Finding 1). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had not
engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity (“SGA”)
during the period from her alleged onset date of March 23,
2011 through her date last insured of March 31, 2016. (Tr.
16, Finding 2). The ALJ determined that through her date last
insured, Plaintiff had the following severe impairments:
recurrent kidney stones, a mass on her ribs with related
rib/sternum pain, mild degenerative disc disease with back
pain, mild obesity, depression, and anxiety with panic
attacks. (Tr. 16, Finding 3). The ALJ also determined that,
through her date last insured, 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. 16-19, Finding 4).
In this
decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective
complaints and determined her Residual Functional Capacity
(“RFC”). (Tr. 19-24, 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, through the date last insured, the
claimant had the residual functional capacity to perform a
range of unskilled, sedentary and light work as defined in
20 CFR 404.1567(b).
Id.
The ALJ
determined Plaintiff was thirty-two (32) years old, which is
defined as a “younger individual” under 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1563(c) (2008), on her date last insured. (Tr. 25,
Finding 7). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had a high school
education (plus a recent associate's degree in
information technology) and was able to communicate in
English. (Tr. 25, Finding 8).
The ALJ
then evaluated Plaintiff's Past Relevant Work
(“PRW”) and determined that through her date last
insured, Plaintiff was unable to perform any of her PRW. (Tr.
24-25, Finding 6). The ALJ also considered whether Plaintiff
retained the capacity to perform other work existing in
significant numbers in the national economy. (Tr. 25-26,
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 both
sedentary work and light work. Id. Specifically, the
ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform the
following occupations: (1) cashier II (light, unskilled) with
824, 000 such jobs in the nation; (2) counter clerk (light,
unskilled) with 18, 000 such jobs in the nation; (3) call out
operator (sedentary, unskilled) with 8, 400 such jobs in the
nation; and (4) final assembler/optical goods (sedentary,
unskilled) with 235, 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, at any time from her alleged onset date of March 23,
2011 through her date last insured of March 31, 2016. (Tr.
26, Finding 11).
Thereafter,
Plaintiff requested the review of the Appeals Council. On
October 6, 2017, the Appeals Council denied this request for
review. (Tr. 5-7). On December 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed her
Complaint in this matter. ECF No. 1. The Parties consented to
the jurisdiction of this Court on December 18, 2017. ECF No.
7. Both Parties have appeal briefs. ECF Nos. 12-13. This case
is now ready for decision.
2.Applicable ...