United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
TIMOTHY W. GRAY, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
KIMBERLY E. WEST, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff
Timothy W. Gray (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
finding of this Court that the Commissioner's decision
should be and is REVERSED and the case is 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 May 24, 1977 and was 36 years old at the time of
the ALJ's decision. Claimant completed his high school
education and vocational technical training in heating and
air conditioning. Claimant has worked in the past as a school
bus driver, cook, sign tech, maintenance worker, oil changer,
bottle maker, radio installer, and HVAC installer. Claimant
alleges an inability to work beginning May 28, 2011 due to
limitations resulting from COPD, neuropathy in his hands and
feet, fibromyalgia, arthritis in his back, knees, and hands,
depression, stomach/esophagus problems, high blood pressure,
and hiatal hernia.
Procedural
History
On
September 12, 2011, Claimant protectively filed for
disability insurance benefits under Title II (42 U.S.C.
§ 401, et seq.) of the Social Security Act.
Claimant's application was denied initially and upon
reconsideration. On October 24, 2013, Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”) Gene M. Kelly conducted an
administrative hearing by video with Claimant appearing in
Muskogee, Oklahoma and the ALJ presiding in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
On February 6, 2014, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision.
On July 24, 2015, the Appeals Council denied review of the
decision. As a result, the decision of the ALJ represents the
Commissioner's final decision for purposes of further
appeal. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.981, 416.1481.
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, he did not meet a listing and retained the
residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform
light work with limitations.
Errors
Alleged for Review
Claimant
asserts the ALJ committed error in failing to specify the
frequency of Claimant's need to alternate between ...