Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Davis-Farley v. Berryhill

United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma

March 13, 2017

TAMMY SUE DAVIS-FARLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          KIMBERLY E. WEST UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Tammy Sue Davis-Farley (the “Claimant”) requests judicial review of the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the “Commissioner”) denying Claimant's application for disability benefits under the Social Security Act. Claimant appeals the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) and asserts that the Commissioner erred because the ALJ incorrectly determined that Claimant was not disabled. For the reasons discussed below, it is the recommendation of the undersigned that the Commissioner's decision be REVERSED and the case REMANDED for further proceedings.

         Social Security Law and Standard of Review

         Disability 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 Social Security 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. See, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920.[1]

         Judicial review of the Commissioner's determination is limited in scope by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). This Court's review is limited to two inquiries: first, whether the decision was supported by substantial evidence; and, second, whether the correct legal standards were applied. Hawkins v. Chater, 113 F.3d 1162, 1164 (10th Cir. 1997)(citation omitted). The term “substantial evidence” has been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court to require “more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). The court may not re-weigh the evidence nor substitute its discretion for that of the agency. Casias v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 933 F.2d 799, 800 (10th Cir. 1991). Nevertheless, the court must review the record as a whole, and the “substantiality of the evidence must take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight.” Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 488 (1951); see also, Casias, 933 F.2d at 800-01.

         Claimant's Background

         Claimant was born on April 14, 1969 and was 46 years old at the time of the ALJ's latest decision. Claimant completed her high school education. She also completed her certified nurse's assistant's (“CNA”) certification. Claimant has worked in the past as a CNA and hand packager. Claimant alleges an inability to work beginning February 15, 2011 due to limitations resulting from high blood pressure, ganglion arthropathy, moderate obesity, sleep apnea, anxiety, depression, gout, and neck and back pain.

         Procedural History

         On March 17, 2011, Claimant protectively filed for disability insurance benefits under Title II (42 U.S.C. § 401, et seq.) for supplemental security income pursuant to Title XVI (42 U.S.C. § 1381, et seq.) of the Social Security Act. Claimant's applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration. On December 19, 2012, Administrative Law Judge Doug Gabbard, II (“ALJ”) conducted a hearing by video with Claimant appearing in Poteau, Oklahoma and the ALJ presiding in McAlester, Oklahoma. On January 25, 2013, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision. On March 21, 2014, the Appeals Council denied review of the decision. The decision was appealed to this Court. On November 13, 2014, Defendant moved to remand this case. On November 21, 2014, this Court reversed the decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

         On September 22, 2015, a second hearing was conducted by ALJ John Belcher by video with Claimant appearing in Poteau, Oklahoma and the ALJ presiding in Tulsa, Oklahoma. On November 9, 2015, the ALJ entered a second unfavorable decision. No action was taken to seek review by the Appeals Council. As a result, the decision of the ALJ represents the Commissioner's final decision for purposes of further appeal. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.984, 416.1484.

         Decision of the Administrative Law Judge

         The ALJ made his decision at step five of the sequential evaluation. He determined that while Claimant suffered from severe impairments, she retained the RFC to perform sedentary work with limitations for the closed period from April 1, 2011 through May 19, 2013.

         Error Alleged for Review

         Claimant asserts the ALJ committed error in (1) making an improper RFC determination; and (2) reaching ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.