United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Randall (“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 a period of
disability and Disability Insurance Benefits
(“DIB”) 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 disability application on July 21,
2015. (Tr. 23). In her application, Plaintiff alleges being
disabled due to problems with her legs, varicose veins,
neurofibromatosis, migraines, back problems, scoliosis,
memory loss, left foot problems, brain tumor, and depression.
(Tr. 216). Plaintiff alleges an onset date of July 20, 2015.
(Tr. 23). This application was denied initially and again
upon reconsideration. (Tr. 78-107).
requested an administrative hearing on her denied
application, and this hearing request was granted. (Tr.
36-77). Plaintiff had two administrative hearings: (1) June
6, 2017 and (2) October 3, 2017. Id. Plaintiff's
first hearing was held on June 6, 2017 but was continued
because Plaintiff had a medical emergency. (Tr. 36-40).
Plaintiff's second hearing was held on October 3, 2017 in
Texarkana, Texas. (Tr. 41-77). At this hearing, Plaintiff was
present and was represented by counsel, Greg Giles.
Id. Plaintiff and Vocational Expert
(“VE”) Juanita Grant testified at this hearing.
this hearing, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision on her
disability application. (Tr. 20-35). In this decision, the
ALJ found Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of
the Act through December 31, 2019. (Tr. 25, Finding 1). The
ALJ determined Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial
Gainful Activity (“SGA”) since July 20, 2015, her
alleged onset date. (Tr. 25, Finding 2). The ALJ determined
Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: migraine
headaches; degenerative disc disease; lumbar spine;
neurofibromatosis; and ventral hernia. (Tr. 25-27, 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. 27, Finding 4).
part of this decision, the ALJ determined Plaintiff was
forty-eight (48) years old, which is defined as a
“younger person” under 20 C.F.R. §
404.1563(c) (2008). (Tr. 30, Finding 7). The ALJ determined
Plaintiff had at least a high school education and was able
to communicate in English. (Tr. 30, Finding 8).
decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective
complaints and determined her RFC. (Tr. 27-30, 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, I find that
the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform
light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) except she is now
limited to low stress work activity, in that tasks should not
have stringent production standards or stringent time
restraints. Additional limitations include no extremes in
temperature, and she would be limited to a moderate noise
level, such as a typical outside or a busy office.
then evaluated Plaintiff's Past Relevant Work
(“PRW”) and found Plaintiff was unable to perform
her PRW. (Tr. 30, Finding 6). The ALJ considered
Plaintiff's ability 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 this testimony,
the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform
the following three occupations: (1) office helper (light,
unskilled) with 73, 000 such jobs nationally; (2) garment
bagger (light, unskilled) with 102, 000 such jobs nationally;
and (3) linen sorter (light, unskilled) with 120, 000 such
jobs nationally. Id. Based upon this finding, the
ALJ determined Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as
defined by the Act, from July 20, 2015 though the date of his
decision or through December 6, 2017. (Tr. 31, Finding 11).
sought review with the Appeals Council. On July 6, 2018, the
Appeals Council denied this request for review. (Tr. 1-3). On
July 25, 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 No. 5,
13-14. This case is now ready for determination.