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.

Peckenpaugh v. Saul

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Northern Division

July 30, 2019

ROGER W. PECKENPAUGH PLAINTIFF
v.
ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security Administration[1] DEFENDANT

          RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

         The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to United States Chief District Judge Brian S. Miller. You may file written objections to all or part of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your objections; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of fact.

         I. Introduction:

         Plaintiff, Roger W. Peckenpaugh (“Peckenpaugh”), applied for disability benefits on April 29, 2014, alleging disability beginning on April 22, 2008.[2] (Tr. at 15). After conducting a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied his application on April 26, 2017. (Tr. at 176-196). The Appeals Council reviewed the claim and, on December 13, 2017, it remanded the case for another hearing, issuing the following instructions:

1) Proffer Exhibits 12F, 13F, 14F, 15F, 16F, and 17F;[3]
2) Further evaluate the mental impairments with evidentiary findings and appropriate rationale;
3) Give additional consideration to Maximum Residual Functional Capacity with evidentiary support for limitations, explaining the weight given to opinion evidence and evaluating non-treating source opinions; and
4) Expand the record if warranted, incorporating limitations established in the record into the Maximum Residual Functional Capacity and have the vocational expert identity jobs and resolve any conflict.

(Tr. at 15, 197-200).

         A subsequent hearing was held on April 2, 2018, after which the ALJ denied the claim for benefits. (Tr. at 15, 29). The Appeals Council denied Peckenpaugh's request for review on August 24, 2018. (Tr. at 1-6). Thus, the ALJ's decision now stands as the final decision of the Commissioner. Peckenpaugh has filed a Complaint seeking judicial review from this Court.

         For the reasons stated below, the Court concludes that the Commissioner's decision should be affirmed.

         II. The Commissioner's Decision:

         The ALJ found that Peckenpaugh had not engaged in substantial gainful activity during the period from his alleged onset date of January 21, 2012 through his date last insured of June 30, 2016 (Tr. at 18). At Step Two, the ALJ found that Peckenpaugh has the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine and two surgeries, irritable bowel syndrome, chronic pain syndrome, dysthymic disorder, anxiety disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Id.

         After finding that Peckenpaugh's impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment (Tr. at 18), the ALJ determined that Peckenpaugh had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform the full range of sedentary work, except that: (1) he should avoid exposure to hazards such as moving mechanical parts of equipment, tools, or machinery, and avoid electrical shock and unprotected heights; (2) he can understand, remember, and carry out simple job instructions; (3) he can make decisions and judgments in simple work-related situations; (4) he can occasionally respond appropriately to co-workers and supervisors, and incidental contact is not required to perform the work; (5) he should not perform work where interaction with the public is required; and (6) he can respond appropriately to minor changes in the usual work routine. (Tr. at 20).

         The ALJ found that, based on his RFC, Peckenpaugh was unable to perform any past relevant work. (Tr. at 27). At Step Five, the ALJ relied on the testimony of a Vocational Expert ("VE") to find that, based on Peckenpaugh's age, education, work experience and RFC, jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy that he could perform, including work as an addresser ...


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.