United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HON.
BARRY A. BRYANT U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff,
Luis Gutierrez, 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 his 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. 5. 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 his applications on June 6, 2016. (Tr.
67)[2]
. In his applications, Plaintiff alleged being disabled due
to: surgery on his right knee, left shoulder problems, neck
problems, back problems, depression, and anxiety, with an
alleged onset date of April 1, 2015. (Tr. 67, 324).
Plaintiff's application was denied initially and again
upon reconsideration. (Tr. 67). Plaintiff requested an
administrative hearing and that administrative hearing was
held on May 8, 2018. (Tr. 86-139). At this hearing, Plaintiff
was present and represented by counsel, Laura Hernandez.
(Id.). Plaintiff and a Vocational Expert
(“VE”) testified at the hearing.
(Id.). Plaintiff's testimony was
provided via an interpreter, who provided the interpretation
remotely. (Id.).
Following
the administrative hearing, on July 5, 2018, the ALJ entered
an unfavorable decision. (Tr. 61-85). The ALJ found Plaintiff
meets the insured status requirements of the Act through
December 31, 2020. (Tr. 70, Finding 1). The ALJ also found
Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity
from his alleged onset date of April 1, 2015, through his
date last insured. (Tr. 70, Finding 2). The ALJ determined
Plaintiff had the severe impairments of: degenerative disc
disease (DDD) of the cervical and lumbar spines; small tear
posterior horn of the medial meniscus of right knee with
complex cyst; partial thickness tear of left shoulder rotator
cuff with reactive synovitis of the glenohumeral joint; and
depressive and anxiety disorder secondary to medical
condition. (Tr. 70, 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. 70-71, Finding 4).
The ALJ
considered Plaintiff's subjective complaints and
determined his RFC. (Tr. 72-76). The ALJ evaluated
Plaintiff's subjective complaints and found his claimed
limitations were not entirely consistent with the medical
evidence and other evidence in the record. (Tr. 72-73). The
ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the RFC to:
[P]erform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and
416.967(b) except he can reach overhead occasionally with
either upper extremity; can use either upper extremity
frequently to reach in another direction, handle, finger and
feel; can occasionally stoop, crouch, crawl and kneel; cannot
climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds; can occasionally climb
stairs and ramps; is unable to balance on narrow or moving
surfaces, but is able to balance occasionally on level
surfaces; cannot work in proximity to unprotected heights and
dangerous moving machinery; can use foot controls
occasionally; can understand, remember and carry out short,
simple instructions; can perform simple, routine tasks with
no fast-paced high quota production work; can make only
simple work-related decisions; can adapt to few, if any,
workplace changes, and can tolerate only occasional
interaction with co-workers, supervisors and the general
public. (Tr. 72, Finding 5).
The ALJ
then evaluated Plaintiff's Past Relevant Work
(“PRW”) and determined that Plaintiff was unable
to perform any of his past relevant work. (Tr. 76-77, Finding
6). However, the ALJ found there were jobs in the significant
numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform.
(Tr. 77-78, Finding 10). With the help of the VE,
the ALJ found Plaintiff could perform the representative
occupations of housekeeper with approximately 929, 540 jobs
in the nation, or mailroom sorter with approximately 99, 190
jobs in the nation. Id. Based upon this finding, the
ALJ determined Plaintiff was not disabled at any time from
April 1, 2015 through the date of his decision. (Tr. 78,
Finding 11).
Thereafter,
Plaintiff requested the Appeals Council's review of the
ALJ's decision. (Tr. 299). On January 11, 2019, the
Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ's disability
determination. (Tr. 1-8). On February 4, 2019, Plaintiff
filed the present appeal. ECF No. 1. Both Parties have filed
appeal briefs. ECF Nos. 13, 14. 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. §§
404.1520(a)-(f). The fact finder only considers the
plaintiff's age, education, and work experience in light
of his or her RFC if the final stage of this analysis is
reached. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520,
416.920 (2003).
3.
...