Foster v. Saul

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          HON. BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Jacqueline M. Foster (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant to § 205(g) of Title II of the Social Security Act (“The Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2010), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denying her applications for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”), Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”), and a period of disability under Titles II and XVI of the Act.

         Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) (2009), the Honorable Susan 0. Hickey referred this case to this Court for the purpose of making a report and recommendation. In accordance with that referral, and after reviewing the arguments in this case, this Court recommends Plaintiff's case be REVERSED AND REMANDED.

         1. Background:

         Plaintiff protectively filed her disability applications on September 8, 2015. (Tr. 37). In these applications, Plaintiff alleges being disabled due to chronic back pain, knee problems, diabetes, irritable bowel syndrome, and depression. (Tr. 291). Plaintiff alleges an onset date of September 3, 2014. (Tr. 37). Her applications were denied initially and again upon reconsideration. (Tr. 87-185).

         Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on her denied applications, and this hearing request was granted. (Tr. 56-86). Plaintiff's hearing was held on November 30, 2017 in Little Rock, Arkansas. Id. At this hearing, Plaintiff was present and was represented by counsel. Id. Plaintiff and Vocational Expert (“VE”) Stefanie A. Ford testified at this hearing. Id.

         On February 14, 2018, after the administrative hearing, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff's disability applications. (Tr. 34-55). The ALJ determined Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Act through September 30, 2018. (Tr. 40, Finding 1). The ALJ determined Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Act through September 30, 2018. (Tr. 40, Finding 1). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity (“SGA”) since September 3, 2014, her alleged onset date. (Tr. 40, Finding 2).

         The ALJ determined Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: lumbar degenerative disc disease; osteoarthritis of the left knee; major depressive disorder; and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). (Tr. 40-41, Finding 3). The ALJ also determined Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meet or medically equal the requirements of any of the Listings of Impairments in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Regulations No. 4 (“Listings”). (Tr. 41-43, Finding 4).

         In this decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints and determined her Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”). (Tr. 43-47, Finding 5). First, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints and found they were not entirely credible. Id. Second, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had the following RFC:

After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a) with occasional stooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling. The claimant can occasionally climb stairs. The claimant can perform work where interpersonal contact is only incidental to the work performed; the complexity of tasks is learned by rote with few variables and little judgment; and the supervision required is simple, direct, and concrete.

(Tr. 43-47, Finding 5).

         The ALJ determined Plaintiff was forty-five (45) years old, which is defined as a “younger individual” under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(c) (2008) and 20 C.F.R. § 416.964(c) (2008), on her alleged disability onset date. (Tr. 46, Finding 7). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had at least a high school education and was able to communicate in English. (Tr. 48, Finding 8).

         The ALJ then evaluated Plaintiff's Past Relevant Work (“PRW”) and found Plaintiff was unable to perform any of her PRW. (Tr. 47-48, Finding 6). The ALJ also considered whether Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. (Tr. 48-49, Fining 10). The VE testified at the administrative hearing regarding this issue. Id. Based upon that testimony, the ALJ found Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform work as a document preparer (sedentary, unskilled) with 46, 000 such jobs in the national economy and tube operator (sedentary, unskilled) with 3, 100 such jobs in the national economy. Id. In accordance with this finding, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined by the Act, from September 3, 2014 through the date of his decision or through February 14, 2018. (Tr. 49, Finding 11).

         Plaintiff sought review with the Appeals Council. (Tr. 1-7). On October 22, 2018, the Appeals Council denied this request for review. Id. On December 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this case. ECF ...