United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HON.
BARRY A. BRYANT U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff,
Sandra Lamberton, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. §
405(g), seeking judicial review of a decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security Administration (Commissioner)
denying her claim for a period of disability and disability
insurance benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the
Social Security Act (hereinafter “the Act”), 42
U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A).
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. 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 application for DIB on July 19, 2012.
(Tr. 138, 277)[2]. In her application, Plaintiff alleged
being disabled due to carpal tunnel syndrome and cervical
disc degenerative [sic] with an alleged onset date
of July 19, 2012. (Tr. 36, 138, 327). These applications were
denied initially and again upon reconsideration. (Tr. 138).
Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing and that
administrative hearing was held on November 13, 2013. (Tr.
83-120). At this hearing, Plaintiff was present and was
represented by attorney Greg Giles. (Tr.83).
Plaintiff and a Vocational Expert (“VE”)
testified at the hearing. (Tr. 83-120).
Following
the hearing, on October 17, 2014, the ALJ entered an
unfavorable decision. (Tr. 134-57). The ALJ found Plaintiff
had last met the insured status requirements of the Act
through December 31, 2017. (Tr. 141, Finding 1). The ALJ also
found Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since her alleged onset date. (Tr. 141, Finding 2).
The ALJ determined Plaintiff had the following severe
impairments: disorders of the back, carpal tunnel, and
obesity. (Tr. 141, 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 20
CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1
(“Listings:”). (Tr. 141-43, Finding 4).
In this
decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective
complaints and determined her RFC. (Tr. 143-50, 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:
[P]erform light work. She can sit, stand that [sic],
and/or walk for about six hours in an eight-hour workday. She
should not do hand controls, but is not limited in pushing or
pulling with her lower extremities. She should not climb
ladders, ropes, or scaffolds more than occasionally, but is
not limited in doing all other postural activities. She is
not limited in reaching in any direction and in gross
manipulation such as handling, but is limited in fingering
and should not do fine manipulation. She has no visual,
communicative, or environmental limitations. Id.
The ALJ
then evaluated Plaintiff's Past Relevant Work
(“PRW”). (Tr. 151-52, Finding 6). The ALJ
determined Plaintiff was capable of performing her past
relevant work as a housekeeper, DOT code 323.687-014.
Id. The ALJ based this determination upon the
testimony of the VE. Id. The ALJ found that, in the
alternative, there were jobs in the significant numbers in
the national economy that Plaintiff could perform. (Tr.
152-53, Finding 10). The ALJ found Plaintiff could perform
the representative occupations of: sales attendant with
approximately 40, 000 jobs in the nation, laundry folder with
approximately 22, 000 jobs in the nation, or a furniture
retail clerk with approximately 15, 000 jobs in the nation.
(Tr. 153). Based upon this finding, the ALJ determined
Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined in the
Act, from her onset date of July 19, 2012, through the date
of his decision. (Tr. 153, Finding 11).
Thereafter,
Plaintiff requested the Appeals Council's review of the
ALJ's decision. (Tr. 219). On January 27, 2016, the
Appeals Council granted Plaintiff's request for review
and remanded the case. (Tr. 160-162). They found that the ALJ
erred on three points: 1) Plaintiff's RFC was more
restrictive than the hypothetical posed to the vocational
expert, compromising the applicability of the vocational
expert's testimony evidence; 2) The ALJ did not
adequately address Plaintiff's shoulder impairment at
step two or in the RFC, further analysis was found to be
warranted; 3) The ALJ did not adequately evaluate the
credibility of Plaintiff's allegations, including her
alleged inability to sit for more than three hours or stand
and walk for one hour. (Tr. 160-61). The Appeals Council
ordered that upon remand the ALJ would: 1) Give further
consideration to the nature and severity of Plaintiff's
alleged conditions, including whether they were medically
determinable and whether they were severe; 2) Further
evaluate Plaintiff's subjective complaints and provide
rationale in accordance with the disability regulations; 3)
Give further consideration to Plaintiff's maximum RFC and
provide rationale with specific references to evidence of
record in support of the assessed limitations; and, 4) If
warranted, obtain supplemental evidence from a vocational
expert. (Tr. 161).
A
second administrative hearing was held on July 17, 2017. (Tr.
53-81). At this hearing, Plaintiff was present and was
represented by attorney Greg Giles. (Tr. 53).
Plaintiff and a Vocational Expert (“VE”)
testified at the hearing. (Tr. 53-81).
Following
the hearing, on August 30, 2017, the ALJ entered an
unfavorable decision. (Tr. 33-52). The ALJ found Plaintiff
had last met the insured status requirements of the Act
through December 31, 2017. (Tr. 38, Finding 1). The ALJ also
found Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since her alleged onset date. (Tr. 38, Finding 2).
The ALJ determined Plaintiff had the following severe
impairments: degenerative disease of the right shoulder and
cervical spine, with arm pain; bilateral carpal tunnel
syndrome; diabetes mellitus; and obesity. (Tr. 38-39, 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 20 CFR Part 404,
Subpart P, Appendix 1 (“Listings:”). (Tr. 39,
Finding 4).
In this
decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective
complaints and determined her RFC. (Tr. 39-44, 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:
[P]erform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.157(b).
Specifically, the claimant can lift and carry, push and pull,
up to 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. The
claimant can stand and/or walk, and sit for six hours in an
eight-hour workday. The claimant can frequently climb, but
never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. The claimant can
occasionally reach overhead, and can otherwise frequently
perform ...