United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
BARRY A. BRYANT U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Lipps, (“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 Disability
Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of 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.
protectively filed her application for DIB on April 28, 2015.
(Tr. 10). In this application, Plaintiff alleges being
disabled due to knee and hip replacement. (Tr. 153).
Plaintiff alleges an onset date of March 24, 2011.
Id. Her application was denied initially and again
upon reconsideration. (Tr. 10).
requested an administrative hearing on her denied
application. (Tr. 83-84). This hearing request was granted
and Plaintiff's administrative hearing was held on
October 13, 2017. (Tr. 22-51). At this hearing, Plaintiff was
present and was represented by counsel, Greg Giles.
Id. Plaintiff and Vocational Expert
(“VE”) Wilfred Roux testified at the hearing.
Id. At the time of the hearing, Plaintiff was sixty
(60) years old and had a GED. (Tr. 31).
the hearing, on December 6, 2017, the ALJ entered an
unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff's application for
DIB. (Tr. 10-17). In this decision, the ALJ determined
Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Act
through March 31, 2012. (Tr. 12, Finding 1). The ALJ also
determined Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial Gainful
Activity (“SGA”) from March 24, 2011, through her
date last insured of March 31, 2012. (Tr. 12, Finding 2).
found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments:
degenerative joint disease of the left knee. (Tr. 12, Finding
3). 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.
14, Finding 4).
decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective
complaints and determined her RFC. (Tr. 14-16, 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 RFC to perform sedentary work except
cannot crouch, crawl, kneel, climb ladders, ropes, or
scaffolds; can occasionally stoop, use foot controls, and
climb ramps and stairs; cannot balance on narrow or moving
surfaces, but can balance occasionally on level surfaces; and
cannot work in proximity to unprotected heights or dangerous
moving machinery. Id.
then evaluated Plaintiff's Past Relevant Work
(“PRW”). (Tr. 16, Finding 6). The ALJ determined
Plaintiff was capable of performing her PRW as a court clerk.
Id. Based upon this finding, the ALJ determined
Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined in the
Act, from March 24, 2011 through March 31, 2012. (Tr. 16,
Plaintiff requested the Appeals Council's review of the
ALJ's decision. (132-135). The Appeals Council denied
this request for review. (Tr. 1-6). On June 28, 2018,
Plaintiff filed the present appeal. ECF No. 1. Both Parties
have filed appeal briefs. ECF Nos. 14, 15. This case is now
ready for decision.
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.
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. ...