United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HON.
BARRY A. BRYANT U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Candice
Wolcott (“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 Supplemental
Security Income (“SSI”) and a period of
disability 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.[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 an application for SSI on September 14,
2015. (Tr. 15). Plaintiff alleged she was disabled due to due
to heart issues and Chron's disease. (Tr. 186). Plaintiff
alleged an onset date of January 1, 2014. (Tr. 15). This
application was denied initially and again upon
reconsideration. Id. Thereafter, Plaintiff requested
an administrative hearing on her application and this hearing
request was granted. (Tr. 98-100).
Plaintiff's
administrative hearing was held on July 12, 2017. (Tr.
38-64). Plaintiff was present and was represented by Stan
Brummal at this hearing. Id. Plaintiff and
Vocational Expert (“VE”) Phunda Yarbrough
testified at this hearing. Id. At the time of this
hearing, Plaintiff was thirty-four (34) years old and had a
GED. (Tr. 42-43).
On
February 14, 2018, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision
denying Plaintiff's application for SSI. (Tr. 15-23). In
this decision, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not engaged
in Substantial Gainful Activity (“SGA”) since
September 14, 2015. (Tr. 17, Finding 1). The ALJ also
determined Plaintiff had the severe impairments of a history
of supraventricular tachycardia statuspost cardiac ablation
and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. (Tr. 17,
Finding 2). The ALJ then determined Plaintiff's
impairments did not meet or medically equal the requirements
of any of the Listing of Impairments in Appendix 1 to Subpart
P of Regulations No. 4 (“Listings”). (Tr. 19,
Finding 3).
In this
decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective
complaints and determined her RFC. (Tr. 19-23). First, the
ALJ indicated she 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 light work, except
could occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl and
climb ramps and stairs, but could not climb ladders, ropes,
or scaffolds. (Tr. 19, Finding 4).
The ALJ
then evaluated Plaintiff's Past Relevant Work
(“PRW”). (Tr. 23, Finding 5). The ALJ found
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.
23, 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 cafeteria
attendant with 142, 100 such jobs in the nation, marker with
463, 169 such jobs in the nation, and housekeeper cleaner
with 248, 672 such jobs in the nation. Id. Based
upon this finding, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not been
under a disability as defined by the Act since September 14,
2015. (Tr. 24, Finding 10).
Thereafter,
Plaintiff requested the Appeals Council review the ALJ's
unfavorable decision. (Tr. 147-148). See 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.968. The Appeals Council declined to review this
unfavorable decision. (Tr. 1-6). On September 21, 2018,
Plaintiff filed the present appeal. ECF No. 1. The Parties
consented to the jurisdiction of this Court. ECF No. 5. Both
Parties have filed appeal briefs. ECF Nos. 13, 14. This case
is now ready for decision.
2.
Applicable Law:
In
reviewing this case, this Court is required to determine
whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by
substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See
42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2006); Ramirez v. Barnhart,
292 F.3d 576, 583 (8th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence is
less than a preponderance of the evidence, but it is enough
that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support the
Commissioner's decision. See Johnson v. Apfel,
240 F.3d 1145, 1147 (8th Cir. 2001). As long as there is
substantial evidence in the record that supports the
Commissioner's decision, the Court may not reverse it
simply because substantial evidence exists in the record that
would have supported a contrary outcome or because the Court
would have decided the case differently. See Haley v.
Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2001). If, after
reviewing the record, it is possible to draw two inconsistent
positions from the evidence and one of those positions
represents the findings of the ALJ, the decision of the ALJ
must be affirmed. See Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065,
1068 (8th Cir. 2000).
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.
...