Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Coletta v. Berryhill

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fort Smith Division

May 6, 2019

THELMA COLETTA PLAINTIFF
v.
NANCY BERRYHILL Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          HON. BARRY A. BRYANT, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Thelma 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.

         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. 7.[1] 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 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).

         Thereafter, 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).

         Subsequent 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).

         Subsequent 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).

         The ALJ 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).

         In this 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. Id.

         Considering 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).

         The ALJ 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, Finding 11).

         On May 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.

         2. Ap ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.