United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Harrison Division
TAMMY L. KOCH PLAINTIFF
v.
ANDREW SAUL[1], Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HON.
BARRY A. BRYANT, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff,
Tammy L. Koch, 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, disability
insurance benefits (“DIB”), and supplemental
security income (“SSI”) benefits under Titles II
and XVI of the Social Security Act (hereinafter “the
Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A),
1382c(a)(3)(A). In this judicial review, the court must
determine whether there is substantial evidence in the
administrative record to support the Commissioner's
decision. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
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. 4. 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 and SSI on August
15, 2014. (Tr. 10, 347)[2]. In her application, Plaintiff alleged
being disabled because of the following: degenerative disc
disease, a bulging disc, irritable bowel syndrome,
depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, and posttraumatic
stress disorder, with an alleged onset date of July 16, 2012.
(Tr. 10, 138, 327, 373, 379). These applications were denied
initially and again upon reconsideration. (Tr. 10). Plaintiff
requested an administrative hearing and that administrative
hearing was held on October 21, 2015. (Tr. 219-233). At this
hearing, Plaintiff appeared and requested a postponement of
the hearing to allow her to seek representation, the ALJ
granted the postponement. Id. A second
administrative hearing was held on April 20, 2016. (Tr.
180-217). At this hearing, Plaintiff was present and
represented herself. (Tr. 182). Plaintiff and a
Vocational Expert (“VE”) testified at the
hearing. (Tr. 180-217).
Following
this hearing, on September 25, 2017, the ALJ entered a
partially favorable decision. (Tr. 7-32). The ALJ found
Plaintiff had last met the insured status requirements of the
Act through December 31, 2016. (Tr. 13, Finding 1). The ALJ
also found Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since her alleged onset date. (Tr. 13, Finding 2).
The ALJ found Plaintiff did not have a severe impairment
prior to February 1, 2014. (Tr. 14, Finding 3). The ALJ
determined Plaintiff had the following severe impairments
from February 1, 2014, through December 12, 2016:
degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, status
post-surgery; chronic pain syndrome; obesity; depressive
disorder not otherwise specified; posttraumatic stress
disorder; and borderline and dependent personality traits.
(Tr. 14, Finding 4). 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”) for
the time period between February 1, 2014, and December 12,
2016. (Tr. 14-15, Finding 5).
The ALJ
considered Plaintiff's subjective complaints and
determined her RFC for the above time period. (Tr. 15-19).
The ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints and
found her claimed limitations were generally consistent with
the evidence during the above time period. (Tr. 16). The ALJ
determined Plaintiff retained the RFC to:
[P]erform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a)
except that she was limited to occasional climbing of ramps
and stairs; no climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds;
occasional balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and
crawling; and no concentrated exposure to hazards, including
not driving as part of work. The claimant was able to perform
work where interpersonal contact is incidental to work
performed; the complexity of tasks is learned and performed
by rote, with few variables and little use of judgment; and
supervision required is simple, direct, and concrete.
However, due pain, she would miss two or more days of work
per month on a regular and consistent basis Id.
The ALJ
then evaluated Plaintiff's Past Relevant Work
(“PRW”) and, based upon the testimony of the VE,
determined Plaintiff was incapable of performing any of her
PRW from February 1, 2014, through December 12, 2016. (Tr.
19). The ALJ found there were no jobs that existed in
significant numbers in that national that Plaintiff could
have performed during that time period, and found Plaintiff
was disabled from February 1, 2014, through December 12,
2016. (Tr. 20-21, Findings 11, 12).
The ALJ
found Plaintiff had not developed any new impairments since
December 13, 2016, and thus her impairments were the same as
those present from February 1, 2014, through December 12,
2016. (Tr. 21, Finding 13). The ALJ found Plaintiff had not
had a severe impairment or combination of impairments that
met or medically equaled an impairment in the listings since
December 13, 2016). (Tr. 21-22, Finding 14). The ALJ found
medical improvement had occurred as of December 13, 2016, and
that it related to Plaintiff's ability to work because
there had been an increase in her RFC. (Tr. 22, Findings 15,
16).
The ALJ
evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints and
determined her RFC. (Tr. 22-25, Finding 5). First, the ALJ
evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints and found her
statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting
effects of her impairments were not consistent with the
medical evidence of record beginning December 13, 2016.
Id. Second, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained
the RFC to:
[P]erform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a)
except that she was limited to occasional climbing of ramps
and stairs; no climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds;
occasional balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and
crawling; and no concentrated exposure to hazards, including
not driving as part of work. The claimant was able to perform
work where interpersonal contact is incidental to work
performed; the complexity of tasks is learned and performed
by rote, with few variables and little use of judgment; and
supervision required is simple, direct, and concrete.
Id.
The ALJ
then evaluated Plaintiff's Past Relevant Work
(“PRW”). (Tr. 22-25, Finding 17). The ALJ
determined Plaintiff was still not capable of performing her
past relevant work. (Tr. 25, Finding 18). The ALJ
found that, beginning on December 13, 2016, there were jobs
in the significant numbers in the national economy that
Plaintiff could perform. (Tr. 25-26, Finding 22). The ALJ
found Plaintiff could perform the representative occupations
of: small item inspector with approximately 20, 000 jobs in
the nation, table worker with approximately 9, 000 jobs in
the nation, or a small product assembler with approximately
20, 000 jobs in the nation. Id. Based upon this
finding, the ALJ determined Plaintiff's disability had
ended on December 13, 2016. (Tr. 26, Finding 23).
Thereafter,
Plaintiff requested the Appeals Council's review of the
ALJ's decision. (Tr. 344-46). On May 23, 2018, the
Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ's disability
determination. (Tr. 1-4). On July 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed
the present appeal. ECF No. 1. Both ...