United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fort Smith Division
BARRY A. BRYANT, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Coletta (“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 July 6,
2009. (Tr. 127-135). In her applications, Plaintiff alleges
being disabled due to lupus, thyroid problems, and back
problems. (Tr. 171). Plaintiff alleged an onset date of April
30, 2009. (Tr. 172). These applications were denied initially
and again upon reconsideration. (Tr. 73-76).
Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on her denied
applications. (Tr. 91-92). This hearing request was granted,
and Plaintiff's first administrative hearing was held on
June 29, 2010 in Fort Smith, Arkansas. (Tr. 32-72).
Subsequent to this hearing, the ALJ entered a fully
unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff's applications.
(Tr. 17-31). Plaintiff appealed that decision to this Court,
and Plaintiff's case was reversed and remanded back to
the ALJ. (Tr. 647-655).
to that remand, the ALJ held a second administrative hearing
and the ALJ then entered an unfavorable decision on September
5, 2014. (Tr. 590-613). Plaintiff appealed that decision to
this Court, and Plaintiff's case was reversed and
remanded back to the ALJ. (Tr. 1464-1470).
to the second remand, the ALJ held a third administrative
hearing on October 3, 2017. (Tr. 1418-1432). The ALJ entered
an unfavorable decision on February 22, 2018. (Tr.
1398-1408). In that decision, the ALJ determined Plaintiff
met the insured status requirements of the Act through
December 31, 2013. (Tr. 1401, Finding 1). The ALJ also
determined Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial Gainful
Activity (“SGA”) since April 30, 2009, her
alleged disability onset date. (Tr. 1401, Finding 2).
determined Plaintiff has the following severe impairments:
disorders of the back post surgery; Lupus; right carpal
tunnel syndrome post surgery; right long finger post
synovectomy surgery; disorder of the left shoulder post
surgery; and hypothyroidism. (Tr. 1401, Finding 3). The ALJ
also determined Plaintiff's 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. 1401, Finding 4).
decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective
complaints and determined her RFC. (Tr. 1402-1406, Finding
5). 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 capacity to perform sedentary work,
except can occasionally climb ramps or stairs, but never
climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds; can occasionally balance,
stoop, kneel, crouch, or crawl; cannot reach overhead with
the dominant left arm or do away from the body work with the
left arm (90 degrees in front); and can do no rapid
repetitive flexion or extension of the right wrist.
her RFC, the ALJ determined Plaintiff was unable to perform
any of her Past Relevant Work (“PRW”) during the
relevant time period. (Tr. 1407, Finding 6). The ALJ
determined Plaintiff was forty-six (46) years old on her
alleged onset date. (Tr. 1407, Finding 7). Such a person is
categorized as a “younger person” pursuant to 20
C.F.R. § 404.1563(c) and 20 C.F.R. § 416.963(c).
The ALJ determined Plaintiff had a limited education and was
able to communicate in English. (Tr. 1407, Finding 8).
then determined whether Plaintiff retained the capacity to
perform other work existing in significant numbers in the
national economy. (Tr. 1407, Finding 10). Vocational Expert
(“VE”) Montie Lumpkin testified at the
administrative hearing regarding this issue. Id.
Notably, the ALJ determined that a hypothetical person with
Plaintiff's age, education, work experience, and RFC
retained the capacity to perform work as a toy stuffer with
3, 725 such jobs in the United States, a tile table worker
with 2, 892 such jobs in the United States, and as a eye
glass frame polisher with 1, 723 such jobs in the United
States. Id. Accordingly, the ALJ determined
Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform this other work.
Id. Based upon this finding, the ALJ then found
Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined in the
Act, from April 30, 2009 through March 8, 2013. (Tr. 1408,
18, 2018, Plaintiff filed her Complaint in this case. ECF No.
1. Both Parties have filed appeal briefs and have consented
to the jurisdiction of this Court. ECF Nos. 7, 14, 27. This
case is now ready for decision.