United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
H. MCCARTHY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Alzora Maebell West, seeks judicial review of a decision of
the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
denying Social Security disability benefits. In accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) & (3), the parties have
consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge.
role of the court in reviewing the decision of the
Commissioner under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is limited to a
determination of whether the record as a whole contains
substantial evidence to support the decision and whether the
correct legal standards were applied. See Briggs ex rel.
Briggs v. Massanari, 248 F.3d 1235, 1237 (10th Cir.
2001); Winfrey v. Chater, 92 F.3d 1017 (10th Cir.
1996); Castellano v. Secretary of Health & Human
Servs., 26 F.3d 1027, 1028 (10th Cir. 1994). Substantial
evidence is more than a scintilla, less than a preponderance,
and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Richardson v.
Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 1427, 28
L.Ed.2d 842 (1971) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v.
NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). The court may neither
reweigh the evidence nor substitute its judgment for that of
the Commissioner. Casias v. Secretary of Health &
Human Servs., 933 F.2d 799, 800 (10th Cir. 1991). Even
if the court would have reached a different conclusion, if
supported by substantial evidence, the Commissioner's
decision stands. Hamilton v. Secretary of Health &
Human Servs., 961 F.2d 1495 (10th Cir. 1992).
was 54 years old on the amended alleged date of onset of
disability and 57 on the date of the ALJ's denial
decision She has a high school education and formerly worked
as a dishwasher and a kitchen helper. She claims to have been
unable to work since the amended alleged onset date of
September 23, 2011 as a result of degenerative disc disease,
degenerative joint disease, obesity, hypertension,
depression, and post traumatic stress disorder.
determined that Plaintiff retains the residual functional
capacity (RFC) to perform medium work as defined in the
Commissioner's regulations with additional limitations.
Plaintiff is able to complete simple instructions, is able to
relate to co-workers and supervisors for work purposes only,
but is unable to relate to the general public.
Plaintiff is unable to perform her past relevant work, based
on the testimony of a vocational expert, the ALJ determined
that there are a significant number of jobs in the national
economy that Plaintiff could perform with these limitations.
The case was thus decided at step five of the five-step
evaluative sequence for determining whether a claimant is
disabled. See Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748,
750-52 (10th Cir. 1988) (discussing five steps in detail).
asserts that the ALJ erred by disregarding a portion of the
opinion of the consultative examiner and by failing to
include limitations related to perform the lifting, bending,
stooping, and standing required of medium exertion work.
Gordon, PhD, performed a mental consultative examination of
Plaintiff on July 10, 2014. [R. 480-483]. He completed a
Medical Source Statement of Ability to Do Work (Mental). [R.
484-486]. Dr. Gordon also found Plaintiff had
a“moderate” limitation in the ability to
understand, remember, and carry out simple instructions, and
in the ability to make judgments on simple work-related
decisions. [R. 485]. The Medical Source Statement form states
that “moderate” means: ...