United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HON.
BARRY A. BRYANT U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff,
Karen June Hall, 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”) benefits under Titles
II 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. 8. 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 August 13,
2014. (Tr. 16, 164)[2]. In her application, Plaintiff alleged
being disabled because of the following: uncontrollable
hypertension, CHF, Asthma, cluster headaches, sleep apnea,
neuropathy, lower back pain, dizziness with buzzing in ears,
falling, anxiety, stress, and prolapsed bladder, with an
alleged onset date of December 2, 2013. (Tr. 16, 179). These
applications were denied initially and again upon
reconsideration. (Tr. 16). Plaintiff requested an
administrative hearing and that administrative hearing was
held on January 10, 2017. (Tr. 34-59). At this hearing,
Plaintiff was present and represented by an attorney, Matthew
Golden. (Tr. 34). Plaintiff and a Vocational Expert
(“VE”) testified at the hearing. (Tr.
34-59).
Following
this hearing, on April 27, 2017, the ALJ entered an
unfavorable decision. (Tr. 12-33). The ALJ found Plaintiff
had last met the insured status requirements of the Act
through September 30, 2017. (Tr. 19, Finding 1). The ALJ also
found Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since her alleged onset date. (Tr. 19, Finding 2).
The ALJ determined Plaintiff had the following severe
impairments: degenerative disc disease, hypertension, and
peripheral neuropathy and non-severe impairments of anxiety
disorder and depression. (Tr. 19-20, Finding 3). Despite
being severe, the ALJ determined Plaintiff’s
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. 20,
Finding 4).
The ALJ
considered Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and
determined her RFC for the above time period. (Tr. 20-23).
The ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and
found her claimed limitations were not entirely consistent
with the evidence during the above time period. (Tr. 22). The
ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the RFC to:
[P]erform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567() except
can climb ramps and stairs occasionally; never climb ladders,
ropes, or scaffolds; can stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl
occasionally; the claimant can work at unprotected heights
but must avoid exposure to hazards including unprotected
heights and dangerous moving machinery.
(Tr. 20).
The ALJ
then evaluated Plaintiff’s Past Relevant Work
(“PRW”) and, based upon the testimony of the VE,
determined Plaintiff could perform any of her PRW as an
office manager. (Tr. 23). Based upon this finding, the ALJ
determined Plaintiff had not been under a disability from
December 2, 2013, through the date of the decision. (Tr. 23,
Finding 7).
Thereafter,
Plaintiff requested the Appeals Council’s review of the
ALJ’s decision. (Tr. 161). On February 28, 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 Parties have filed appeal
briefs. ECF Nos. 22, 23. 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. ...