United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HON.
BARRY A. BRYANT U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Yvonne
Dockery, (“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 disabled widow
benefits (“WIB”) 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. 8. 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 application for DIB and WIB on May 14,
2015. (Tr. 18). In this application, Plaintiff alleges being
disabled due to eye problems, bursitis, arthritis, carpal
tunnel in hands, stomach problems, and high blood pressure.
(Tr. 238). Plaintiff alleges an onset date of March 26, 2011.
(Tr. 18). Her application was denied initially and again upon
reconsideration. Id.
Plaintiff
requested an administrative hearing on her denied
application. (Tr. 131). The request was granted and
Plaintiff's administrative hearing was held on April 18,
2017. (Tr. 37-66). At this hearing, Plaintiff was present and
was not represented by counsel. Id. Plaintiff and
Vocational Expert (“VE”) Ivory Youngblood
testified at the hearing. Id. At the time of the
hearing, Plaintiff was fifty-five (55) years old and had a
college education. (Tr. 41).
Following
the hearing, on August 9, 2017, the ALJ entered an
unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff's application for
DIB. (Tr. 18-30). In this decision, the ALJ determined the
Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Act
through June 30, 2015. (Tr. 21, Finding 1). The ALJ also
determined Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial Gainful
Activity (“SGA”) since April 6, 2011. (Tr. 21,
Finding 4).
The ALJ
then found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments:
history of closed fracture of the humerus, degenerative disc
disease of the cervical spine, degenerative joint disease
(osteoarthritis), left wrist tenosynovitis/carpal tunnel
syndrome, gastritis, hypertension, status post third degree
burns to the abdomen, and obesity. (Tr. 21, Finding 5).
Despite being severe, the ALJ determined those impairments
did not 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
6).
In this
decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective
complaints and determined her RFC. (Tr. 24, Finding 7).
First, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective
complaints and found her claimed limitations were not
entirely credible. Id. Second, the ALJ determined
Plaintiff retained the RFC for medium work but could only
frequently, not constantly, stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, and
climb stairs and ramps; could not climb ladders, ropes, and
scaffolds at all; and could frequently, but not constantly,
handle and finger. Id.
The ALJ
then evaluated Plaintiff's Past Relevant Work
(“PRW”). (Tr. 28, Finding 8). The ALJ determined
Plaintiff was capable of performing her PRW as a city
manager, laundry worker, certified nurse assistant, and
hostess. Id. Based upon this finding, the ALJ
determined Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as
defined in the Act, from April 6, 2011, through the date of
the decision. (Tr. 30, Finding 9).
Thereafter,
Plaintiff requested the Appeals Council's review of the
ALJ's decision. (Tr. 205). The Appeals Council denied
this request for review. (Tr. 1-6). On April 3, 2018,
Plaintiff filed the present appeal. ECF No. 1. Both Parties
have filed appeal briefs. ECF Nos. 13, 14. This case is now
ready for decision.
2.
Applicable Law:
It is
well-established that a claimant for Social Security
disability benefits has the burden of proving his or her
disability by establishing a physical or mental disability
that lasted at least one year and that prevents him or her
from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. See
Cox v. Apfel, 160 F.3d 1203, 1206 (8th Cir. 1998); 42
U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act
defines a “physical or mental impairment” as
“an impairment that results from anatomical,
physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are
demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory
diagnostic techniques.” 42 U.S.C. §§
423(d)(3), 1382(3)(c). A plaintiff must show that his or her
disability, not simply his or her impairment, has lasted for
at least twelve consecutive months. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 423(d)(1)(A).
To
determine whether the adult claimant suffers from a
disability, the Commissioner uses the familiar five-step
sequential evaluation. He determines: (1) whether the
claimant is presently engaged in a “substantial gainful
activity”; (2) whether the claimant has a severe
impairment that significantly limits the claimant's
physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities;
(3) whether the claimant has an impairment that meets or
equals a presumptively disabling impairment listed in the
regulations (if so, the claimant is disabled without regard
to age, education, and work experience); (4) whether the
claimant has the Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) to
perform his or her past relevant work; and (5) if the
claimant cannot perform the past work, the burden shifts to
the Commissioner to prove that there are other jobs in the
national economy that the claimant can perform. See
Cox, 160 F.3d at 1206; 20 C.F.R. ...