United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
JERRY L. PRYOR PLAINTIFF
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HON.
BARRY A. BRYANT, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Jerry
Lee Pryor, (“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 application for Supplemental
Security Income (“SSI”) under Title 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. 5. 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 application for SSI on September 1,
2015. (Tr. 15). In this application, Plaintiff alleges being
disabled due to due to problems with his neck, back, left
knee, and left shoulder. (Tr. 196). This application was
denied initially and again upon reconsideration. (Tr. 15).
Thereafter, Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing,
and that hearing request was granted. (Tr. 96-98).
Plaintiff's
administrative hearing was held on June 27, 2017. (Tr.
29-57). At this hearing, Plaintiff was present and was
represented by counsel, Greg Giles. Id. Plaintiff
and Vocational Expert (“VE”) Ivory Youngblood
testified at the hearing. Id. At the time of the
hearing, Plaintiff was fifty (50) years old and had a high
school education. (Tr. 34-35).
Following
the hearing, on October 31, 2017, the ALJ entered an
unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff's application for
SSI. (Tr. 15-23). In this decision, the ALJ found Plaintiff
had not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity
(“SGA”) since September 1, 2015. (Tr. 17, Finding
1). The ALJ also found Plaintiff had the following severe
impairments: cervical degenerative disc disease and
degenerative joint disease, left knee osteoarthritis and
chondromalacia, and left shoulder rotator cuff tear . (Tr.
17, Finding 2). 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. 18, Finding 3).
In this
decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective
complaints and determined his RFC. (Tr. 19-22, Finding 4).
First, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective
complaints and found his claimed limitations were not
entirely credible. Id. Second, the ALJ determined
Plaintiff retained the RFC to perform light work, except no
bilateral overhead reaching; can climb ramps and stairs, but
never ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; and can occasionally
kneel, crouch, and crawl. Id.
The ALJ
then evaluated Plaintiff's Past Relevant Work
(“PRW”). (Tr. 22, Finding 5). The ALJ determined
Plaintiff had no PRW. Id. The ALJ, however, also
determined there was other work existing in significant
numbers in the national economy Plaintiff could perform. (Tr.
22, Finding 9). The ALJ based this determination upon the
testimony of the VE. Id. Specifically, the VE
testified that given all Plaintiff's vocational factors,
a hypothetical individual would be able to perform the
requirements of representative occupations such as counter
clerk with approximately 255, 787 such jobs in the nation,
customer security with approximately 42, 750 such jobs in the
nation, and usher with approximately 33, 961 such jobs in the
nation. Id. Based upon this finding, the ALJ
determined Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as
defined in the Act, since September 1, 2015. (Tr. 23, Finding
10).
Thereafter,
Plaintiff requested the Appeals Council's review of the
ALJ's decision. (Tr. 148-151). The Appeals Council denied
this request for review. (Tr. 1-6). On June 21, 2018,
Plaintiff filed the present appeal. ECF No. 1. Both Parties
have filed appeal briefs. ECF Nos. 16, 21. 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. §§
404.1520(a)-(f). The fact finder only considers the
plaintiff's age, education, and work experience in light
of his or her RFC if the final stage of this analysis is
reached. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520,
416.920 (2003).
3.
...