United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
BERNARD M.JONES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Jennifer Rose Golden, brings this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of the Social
Security Administration's final decision finding she was
not disabled under the Social Security Act. The parties have
consented to the exercise of jurisdiction over this matter by
a United States Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c). The Commissioner has filed the Social Security
Administrative Record (AR), and both parties have briefed
their respective positions. For the reasons stated below, the
Court affirms the Commissioner's decision.
2013, Plaintiff protectively filed applications for
disability insurance benefits and supplemental security
income. AR 19, 159-162, 163-168. The Social Security
Administration (SSA) denied the applications initially and on
reconsideration. AR 49-50; 66-67. Following an administrative
hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an
unfavorable decision dated June 17, 2015. AR 19-26. The
Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review on
September 21, 2016. AR 1-5. Therefore, the ALJ's decision
constitutes the final decision of the Commissioner.
Krauser v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 1324, 1327 (10th Cir.
2011). Plaintiff timely commenced this action for judicial
review. See Compl. [Doc. No. 1] (filed November 21,
The ALJ's Decision
followed the five-step sequential evaluation process required
by agency regulations. See Fischer-Ross v. Barnhart,
431 F.3d 729, 731 (10th Cir. 2005) (explaining process);
see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920.
The ALJ first determined Plaintiff meets the insured status
requirements of the Act through December 31, 2018, and has
not engaged in substantial gainful activity since June 4,
2013. AR 21.
two, the ALJ determined Plaintiff has the following severe
impairments: diabetes and chronic back pain. Id. The
ALJ determined two additional medically determinable
impairments, celiac disease and Graves' disease, are not
severe impairments. AR 22. At step three, the ALJ found that
the functional limitations resulting from Plaintiff's
impairments, considered alone or in combination, do not meet
or medically equal any of the impairments listed at 20 C.F.R.
Part 404, Subpart P, App. 1. Id.
next determined Plaintiff's residual functional capacity
After careful consideration of the entire record, the
undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual
functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20
CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except the following: she
remains able to stoop, crouch, and kneel.
four, the ALJ relied on the testimony of the vocational
expert (VE), and determined Plaintiff could perform at least
some of her past relevant work:
The claimant is capable of performing past relevant work as a
library clerk (D.O.T. # 249.367-046), record sales clerk
(D.O.T. # 277.357-046), and contract clerk (D.O.T. #
209.387-018). This work does not require the performance of
work-related activities precluded by the claimant's
residual functional capacity (20 CFR 404.1565 and 416.965).
AR 25. Thus, at the fourth step of the sequential evaluation,
the ALJ determined Plaintiff was not disabled.
Issues Presented ...