United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HON.
BARRY A. BRYANT, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff,
Thomas A. Morrow, brings this action pursuant to §
205(g) of Title XVI of the Social Security Act (“The
Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 1382, 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 applications for DIB and SSI on
January 12, 2016. (Tr. 10, 154). In this application,
Plaintiff alleges being disabled due to mental illness, back
injury, and seizures with an alleged onset date of January 1,
2006. (Tr. 187). This application was denied initially and
again upon reconsideration. (Tr. 10, 81, 86). Plaintiff
requested an administrative hearing and that administrative
hearing was held on July 27, 2017. (Tr. 27-56). At this
hearing, Plaintiff was present and was represented by
counsel, Shannon Muse Carroll. Id. Plaintiff and a
Vocational Expert (“VE”) testified at the
hearing. Id. At the administrative hearing,
Plaintiff amended his alleged onset date to December 4, 2015.
(Tr. 29).
Following
the hearing, on February 14, 2018, the ALJ entered an
unfavorable decision. (Tr. 7-21). The ALJ found Plaintiff had
not engaged in substantial gainful activity since his
application date. (Tr. 12, Finding 1). The ALJ determined
Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: seizures,
depression, bipolar, schizophrenia, posttraumatic stress
disorder, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
headaches, and a hernia. (Tr. 12-13, 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 20 CFR
404 (“Listings”). (Tr. 13-15, Finding 3).
In this
decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective
complaints and determined his RFC. (Tr. 15-20, 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:
[P]erform light work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(b) except:
because of asthma and COPD, he should avoid extreme
temperatures, heavy chemicals, heavy dust, heavy fumes, and
heavy humidity (inside climate control). Because of the
possibilities of seizures, he should not be working at
unprotected heights or with ladders or scaffolds, and he
should not be operating machinery such as a chainsaw, or
drive a car, bus, or taxi. Mentally, he is limited to
unskilled, rote activities with very little reading or
writing involved. He can understand, follow, and remember
concrete instructions at the SVP 2 level or less. Contact
with supervision and coworkers would be superficial, and he
should have no contact with the public. He should not handle
money or work around the public at all. He could work in a
room with coworkers but with no real requirement to interact;
he does his own work and passes it on. He could handle
supervision from a supervisor with one to two step processes;
very low supervision is involved in these jobs due to the
simple nature of the work. Id.
The ALJ
found Plaintiff had no Past Relevant Work. (Tr. 20, Finding
5). The ALJ also determined there was other work existing in
significant numbers in the national economy Plaintiff could
perform. (Tr. 20-21, 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 an inspector with approximately 130, 000 such jobs in
the nation or housekeeping with approximately 220, 000 such
jobs in the nation. Id. Based upon these finding,
the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not been under a disability,
as defined in the Act, from January 12, 2016, through the
date of his decision. (Tr. 21, Finding 10).
Thereafter,
Plaintiff requested the Appeals Council's review of the
ALJ's decision. (Tr. 152-53). The Appeals Council denied
this request for review. (Tr. 1-4).
On
March 14, 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.
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. ...