United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HON.
BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Gerald
Wilchie (“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 Disability
Insurance Benefits (“DIB”), Supplemental Security
Income (“SSI”), and a period of disability 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. 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 his disability applications on July 8,
2015. (Tr. 15). In these applications, Plaintiff alleges
being disabled due to osteoarthritis, diabetes, gout,
neuropathy, stomach ulcers, depression, anxiety, high blood
pressure, and asthma. (Tr. 249). Plaintiff alleges an onset
date of May 1, 2015. (Tr. 15). His disability applications
were denied initially and again upon reconsideration. (Tr.
60-130).
Plaintiff
requested an administrative hearing on his denied
applications, and this hearing request was granted. (Tr.
36-59). Plaintiff's administrative hearing was held on
January 23, 2017 in Little Rock, Arkansas. Id. At
this hearing, Plaintiff was present and was represented by
Jennifer Whittle. Id. Plaintiff and Vocational
Expert (“VE”) Myrtle Johnson testified at this
hearing. Id.
On
April 28, 2017, after the administrative hearing, the ALJ
entered an unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff's
disability applications. (Tr. 17-28). The ALJ found Plaintiff
met the insured status requirements of the Act through
December 31, 2019. (Tr. 17, Finding 1). The ALJ determined
Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: diabetes
mellitus, ischemic heart disease, degenerative disc disease,
coronary artery disease, hypertension, gastroparesis,
anxiety, and depression. (Tr. 17-18, Finding 3). The ALJ also
determined 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. 18-19, Finding 4).
In this
decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective
complaints and determined his Residual Functional Capacity
(“RFC”). (Tr. 19-26, 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 light work as defined in 20
CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except the claimant could
perform no work requiring frequent balancing, climbing or
hazards. He would require a cane in his dominant upper
extremity to ambulate away from the workstation. The claimant
is able to perform work where interpersonal contact is
incidental to the work performed, incidental is defined as
interpersonal contact requiring a limited degree of
interaction such as meeting and greeting the public,
answering simple questions, accepting payment and making
change; complexity of tasks can be learned by demonstration
or repetition with 30 days, few variables, little judgment;
supervision required is simple, direct and concrete.
Id.
The ALJ
determined Plaintiff was forty-seven (47) years old, which is
defined as a “younger individual” under 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1563(c) (2008) and 20 C.F.R. § 416.963(c)
(2008), on his alleged disability onset date. (Tr. 26,
Finding 7). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had at least a high
school education and was able to communicate in English. (Tr.
26, Finding 8).
The ALJ
then evaluated Plaintiff's Past Relevant Work
(“PRW”) and found Plaintiff was unable to perform
any of his PRW. (Tr. 26, Finding 6). The ALJ also considered
whether Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform other work
existing in significant numbers in the national economy. (Tr.
27, 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 garment bagger with 117, 000 such jobs in
the nation economy and price tagger with 285, 000 such jobs
in the national economy. Id. Based upon this
finding, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not been under a
disability, as defined by the Act, from May 1, 2015 through
the date of his decision or through April 28, 2017. (Tr. 27,
Finding 11).
Plaintiff
sought review with the Appeals Council. On March 3, 2018, the
Appeals Council denied this request for review. (Tr. 1-6). On
May 9, 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. 8,
15-16.
2.
Ap ...