United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
J. Cleary United States Magistrate Judge
Tina Watkins (“Watkins”), seeks judicial review
of the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration (“Commissioner”) denying her
application for disability insurance benefits under Title II
of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401 et
seq. For the reasons discussed below, the
Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.
Security Law and Standard of Review
under the Social Security Act is defined as the
“inability to engage in any substantial gainful
activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or
mental impairment.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). A
claimant is disabled under the Act only if his
“physical or mental impairment or impairments are of
such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous
work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work
experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful
work which exists in the national economy.” 42 U.S.C.
§ 423(d)(2)(A). Social Security regulations implement a
five-step sequential process to evaluate a disability claim.
20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. See also Wall v. Astrue, 561
F.3d 1048, 1052 (10th Cir. 2009) (detailing steps). “If
a determination can be made at any of the steps that a
claimant is or is not disabled, evaluation under a subsequent
step is not necessary.” Lax, 489 F.3d 1080,
1084 (10th Cir. 2007) (citation and quotation omitted).
review of the Commissioner's determination is limited in
scope to two inquiries: first, whether the decision was
supported by substantial evidence; and, second, whether the
correct legal standards were applied. Hamlin v.
Barnhart, 365 F.3d 1208, 1214 (10th Cir. 2004).
evidence is such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion. It requires more than a
scintilla, but less than a preponderance.”
Wall, 561 F.3d at 1052 (quotation and citation
omitted). Although the court will not reweigh the evidence,
the court will “meticulously examine the record as a
whole, including anything that may undercut or detract from
the ALJ's findings in order to determine if the
substantiality test has been met.” Id.
was thirty-eight years old on the amended alleged date of
onset of disability and forty-one on the date of the
Commissioner's final decision. [R. 1, R. 150 (Ex. 1D)].
She has a high school education. [R. 32, R. 169 (Ex. 2E)].
She has previous experience as a cashier, a habilitation
training specialist and a plastic molder. [R. 169 (Ex. 2E)].
In her application, she claimed to be unable to work as a
result of social anxiety, depression, ADHD,
“Anger/Explosive problem, ” and bipolar disorder.
[R. 1`68 (Ex. 2E)].
decision, the ALJ found that Watkins last met insured status
requirements on December 31, 2011, but not thereafter, and,
at Step One, that she had not engaged in any substantial
gainful activity since January 10, 2012, the application
date. [R. 13]. He found at Step Two that Watkins had severe
impairments of affective disorder and anxiety disorder.
Id. At Step Three, he found that the impairments did
not meet or medically equal any listing. Id. He
concluded that Watkins the following residual functional
[T]he claimant has the residual functional capacity to
perform a full range of work at all exertional levels but
with the following nonextertional limitations: The claimant
is able to perform simple work with routine supervision. The
claimant is able to relate to coworkers and supervisors for
work related purposes only. She should have no contact with
the general public. She is able to adapt to a work situation.
[R. 15]. At Step Four, the ALJ determined that Watkins had no
past relevant work. [R. 18]. At Step Five, he found that,
considering Watkin's age, education, work experience and
residual functional capacity, there were jobs existing in
significant numbers in the national economy that she could
perform, including hand packager (medium exertion, unskilled,
SPV 2, DOT #920.587-018, 18, 000 positions in the region and
220, 000 positions nationally); laundry worker (medium
exertion, unskilled, SVP 2, DOT #361.685-018, 15, 000
positions in the region and 190, 000 positions nationally);
dishwasher (medium exertion, unskilled, SVP 2, DOT
#318.687-010, 19, 000 positions in the region and 280, 000
positions nationally); laundry sorter (light exertion,
unskilled, SVP 2, DOT #361.687-014, 12, 000 positions in the
region and 177, 000 positions nationally); assembler (light
exertion, unskilled, SVP 2, DOT #706.684-022, 13, 000
positions in the region and 180, 000 positions nationally);
and trimmer (sedentary exertion, unskilled, SVP 2, DOT
#692.685-266, 6, 500 positions in the region and 95, 000
positions nationally). [R. 19].
the ALJ found that Watkins had not been under a disability
since January 10, 2012, the date the application was filed.