United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fort Smith Division
ROXIE A. FULLER PLAINTIFF
NANCY A. BERRYHILL DEFENDANT Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration
BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
A. Fuller (“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 applications for Supplemental
Security Income (“SSI”), Disability Insurance
Benefits (“DIB”), and a period of disability
under Titles II and XVI 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. 7. 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 applications on April 29,
2016. (Tr. 15). In these applications, Plaintiff alleges
being disabled due to a herniated disc, arm problems, pelvic
problems, and anxiety. (Tr. 251). Plaintiff alleges an onset
date of April 9, 2013. (Tr. 15). Her applications were denied
initially and again upon reconsideration. (Tr. 75-150).
Plaintiff's applications were denied, Plaintiff requested
an administrative hearing on these applications, and this
hearing request was granted. (Tr. 30-70). Thereafter, on
October 5, 2017, the SSA held an administrative hearing on
Plaintiff's applications in Fort Smith, Arkansas.
Id. At this hearing, Plaintiff was present and was
represented by Matthew Ketcham. Id. Plaintiff and
Vocational Expert (“VE”) Barbara Hubbard
testified at this hearing. Id.
December 29, 2017, after the administrative hearing, the ALJ
entered a fully unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff's
applications. (Tr. 12-29). The ALJ found Plaintiff met the
insured status requirements of the Act through March 31,
2018. (Tr. 17, Finding 1). The ALJ found Plaintiff had not
engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity (“SGA”)
since April 9, 2013, her alleged onset date. (Tr. 17, Finding
2). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had the following severe
impairments: osteoarthritis of the left shoulder, chronic
lower back pain syndrome, anxiety, and depression. (Tr. 17,
Finding 3). Despite being severe, the ALJ also 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. 18-19, Finding 4).
determined Plaintiff had a limited education but was able to
communicate in English. (Tr. 21, Finding 8). The ALJ
determined Plaintiff was thirty-eight (38) years old, which
is defined as a “younger individual” under 20
C.F.R. § 416.963(c) (SSI) and 20 C.F.R. §
404.1563(c) (DIB). (Tr. 21, Finding 7).
decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective
complaints and determined her RFC. (Tr. 19-20, Finding 5).
Specifically, the ALJ found Plaintiff retained the following
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 limited to jobs with
simple tasks, simple instructions, and incidental contact
with the public, and involve only occasional overhead
determined Plaintiff was unable to perform any of her Past
Relevant Work (“PRW”). (Tr. 20, Finding 6). The
ALJ, however, found Plaintiff did retain the capacity to
perform other work existing in significant numbers in the
national economy. (Tr. 21-22, Finding 10). In making this
determination, the ALJ relied upon the testimony of the VE.
Id. Based upon this testimony, the ALJ determined
Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform work as a price
marking clerk with 304, 000 such jobs nationally; routing
clerk with 53, 400 such jobs nationally; and photocopy
machine operator with 15, 600 such jobs nationally. (Tr. 21).
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 April 9, 2013 through
the date of his decision or through January 4, 2018. (Tr. 22,
requested the Appeals Council's review of the ALJ
unfavorable disability determination. On July 9, 2018, the
Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ's disability
determination. (Tr. 1-6). On September 5, 2018, Plaintiff
filed the present appeal. ECF No. 1. The Parties consented to
the jurisdiction of this Court on September 10, 2018. ECF No.
7. This case is now ready for decision.