United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, El Dorado Division
BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Moore (“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.
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 her DIB application on October 14, 2014.
(Tr. 40). In this application, Plaintiff alleges being
disabled due to anxiety, high blood pressure, lumbar
spondylosis, facet arthropathy, disc disease, and breathing
problems. (Tr. 220). Plaintiff alleges an onset date of
December 1, 2010. (Tr. 40). Her DIB application was denied
initially and again upon reconsideration. (Tr. 111-139).
requested an administrative hearing on her denied
application, and this hearing request was granted. (Tr. 156).
Plaintiff's administrative hearing was held on October
20, 2016 in Alexandria, Louisiana. (Tr. 60-89). At this
hearing, Plaintiff was present and was represented by Greg
Giles. Id. Plaintiff and Medical Expert
(“ME”) Dr. Kweli J. Amusa testified at this
December 21, 2016, after the administrative hearing, the ALJ
entered an unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff's DIB
application. (Tr. 37-50). The ALJ determined Plaintiff last
met the insured status requirements of the Act on December
31, 2015. (Tr. 42, Finding 1). The ALJ determined Plaintiff
had not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity
(“SGA”) during the period from her alleged onset
date of December 1, 2010 through her date last insured of
December 31, 2015. (Tr. 42, Finding 2). The ALJ determined
Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: degenerative
disc disease of the cervical and lumbar spine and
hypertension. (Tr. 42-44, 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. 44-45,
decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective
complaints and determined her Residual Functional Capacity
(“RFC”). (Tr. 45-49, 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, through the date last insured, the
claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform the
full range of sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR
determined Plaintiff was forty-four (44) years old, which is
defined as a “younger individual” under 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1563(c) (2008), on her date last insured. (Tr. 49,
Finding 7). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had a limited
education and was able to communicate in English. (Tr. 49,
then evaluated Plaintiff's Past Relevant Work
(“PRW”) and determined that, through her date
last insured, Plaintiff was unable to perform any PRW. (Tr.
49, Finding 6). The ALJ also considered whether Plaintiff
retained the capacity to perform other work existing in
significant numbers in the national economy. (Tr. 49, Finding
10). The ALJ applied the Medical-Vocational Guidelines or
“Grids” in making this determination.
Id. Based upon Rule 201.25 of the Grids, the ALJ
found Plaintiff was “not disabled.” Id.
Accordingly, the ALJ found Plaintiff was not under a
disability, as defined by the Act, at any time from December
1, 2010 (her alleged onset date) through December 31, 2015
(her date last insured). (Tr. 49, Finding 11).
sought review with the Appeals Council. On December 6, 2017,
the Appeals Council denied this request for review. (Tr.
6-9). On January 30, 2018, 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, 13-14.