United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
CHESTER L. PRICE, Plaintiff,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
KIMBERLY E. WEST, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Chester L. Price (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 to
Defendant for further proceedings.
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 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.
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.
was 59 years old at the time of the ALJ's decision.
Claimant completed his high school education. Claimant has
worked in the past as a pest control technician, welder, and
brand and shear operator (sheet metal worker). Claimant
alleges an inability to work beginning March 8, 2013 due to
limitations resulting from seizure disorder and back pain and
March 25, 2013, 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
June 2, 2014, an administrative hearing was held before
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Lantz McClain by
video with Claimant appearing in Muskogee, Oklahoma and the
ALJ presiding in Tulsa, Oklahoma. By decision dated October
27, 2014, the ALJ denied Claimant's request for benefits.
The Appeals Council denied review of the ALJ's decision
on January 27, 2016. 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.
of the Administrative Law Judge
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 a
full range of work at all exertional levels.
Alleged for Review
asserts the ALJ committed error in (1) improperly relying
upon the testimony of the vocational expert; (2) depriving
Claimant of due process; (3) failing to find Claimant's
seizure disorder meets or equals a listing; (4) failing to
properly consider, weigh, and evaluate the medical evidence;
(5) failing to consider all of Claimant's impairments
properly throughout the sequential evaluation; and (6)
failing to perform a proper credibility determination.