Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Johnson v. Berryhill

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division

January 30, 2019

JAMARCUS JOHNSON PLAINTIFF
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          HON. BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Jamarcus 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 his applications for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) and Child Insurance Benefits (“CDB”) 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.[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 his disability applications on July 9, 2014 (SSI) and on July 15, 2014 (CDB). (Tr. 25). In his applications, Plaintiff alleges he is disabled due to a learning disability, headaches, and a mood disorder. (Tr. 237). Plaintiff alleges an onset date of January 1, 2006. (Tr. 25). These applications were denied initially and again upon reconsideration. (Tr. 69-122).

         Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on his denied applications. This hearing request was granted, and Plaintiff's administrative hearing was held on January 10, 2017. (Tr. 42-68). This hearing was held in Shreveport, Louisiana on January 10, 2017. Id. At this hearing, Plaintiff was present and was represented by counsel, Greg Giles. Id. Only Plaintiff and Vocational Expert (“VE”) Dale Thomas testified at this hearing. Id.

         After this hearing, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision denying his disability applications (Tr. 22-36). This decision was entered on March 30, 2017. Id. In this decision, the ALJ found Plaintiff was born on June 14, 1991 and had not attained age 22 as of January 1, 2006, his alleged onset date. (Tr. 27, Finding 1). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity (“SGA”) since January 1, 2006, his alleged onset date. (Tr. 27, Finding 2). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: intellectual disorder and history of polysubstance abuse. (Tr. 27-29, Finding 3). Despite being severe, the ALJ 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. 25-27, Finding 4).

         The ALJ determined Plaintiff had a high school education and was able to communicate in English. (Tr. 34, Finding 8). The ALJ determined Plaintiff was fourteen (14) years old, which is defined as an “younger individual” under 20 C.F.R. § 416.963(c) (2008) and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(c) (2008). (Tr. 34, Finding 7).

         In this decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints and determined his RFC. (Tr. 27-34, 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 a full range of work at all exertional levels. Therefore, the claimant has no restrictions on the amount of weight that he can lift and carry. He can stand/walk for at least 6-hours out of an 8-hour workday and sit at least 6-hours in an 8-hour workday. In addition, the claimant can perform pushing/pull operations of arm or leg controls and can frequently stoop and crouch. He has full manual dexterity and sufficient visual acuity to perform close work, to handle large objects and to avoid hazards in the workplace. However, the claimant has the following nonexertional limitations: Claimant can only perform simple, routine, and repetitive work tasks; is limited to simple work-related decisions; and can only occasionally interact with supervisors, coworkers, and the public.

Id.

         The ALJ then evaluated Plaintiff's Past Relevant Work (“PRW”) and determined Plaintiff had no PRW. (Tr. 34, Finding 9). The ALJ also considered whether Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. (Tr. 34-35, 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 production worker (e.g., bench assembler) with approximately 108, 000 such jobs in the nation; maid or house cleaner (e.g., laundry worker) with approximately 306, 000 such jobs in the nation; and packer and hand packager (e.g., machine-pack assembler) with 57, 000 such jobs in the nation. Id. Because Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform this other work, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined by the Act, from January 1, 2006 through the date of the ALJ's decision or through March 30, 2017. (Tr. 35, Finding 11).

         Plaintiff sought review with the Appeals Council. On December 22, 2017, the Appeals Council denied this request for review. (Tr. 5-8). On January 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this matter. ECF No. 1. Both Parties have filed appeal briefs and have consented to the jurisdiction of this Court. ECF Nos. 5, 12-13. This case is now ready for determination.

         2. Ap ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.