United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
T. ERWIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for
judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of
the Social Security Administration denying Plaintiff's
application for benefits under the Social Security Act. The
Commissioner has answered and filed a transcript of the
administrative record (hereinafter TR. ___). The parties have
consented to jurisdiction over this matter by a United States
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
parties have briefed their positions, and the matter is now
at issue. Based on the Court's review of the record and
the issues presented, the Court AFFIRMS the
Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff's
application initially and on reconsideration. Following an
administrative hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
issued an unfavorable decision. (TR. 11-24). The Appeals
Council denied Plaintiff's request for review. (TR. 1-6).
Thus, the ALJ's decision became the Commissioner's
THE ADMINISTRATIVE 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); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920.
At step one, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had not
engaged in substantial gainful activity (SGA) since December
23, 2013, the alleged amended disability onset date. (TR.
13). At step two, the ALJ determined that Ms. Hutson had the
following severe impairments: borderline intellectual
functioning; mood disorder; adult antisocial behavior; and a
history of polysubstance abuse. (TR. 13). At step three, the
ALJ found that Plaintiff's impairments did not meet or
medically equal any of the presumptively disabling
impairments listed at 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix
1. (TR. 14).
next assessed Plaintiff's residual functional capacity
(RFC) and found she could:
[P]erform a full range of work at all exertional levels but
with the following nonexertional limitations: no more than
simple, routine, repetitive tasks with no strict production
requirements; and no more than simple work-related decision
making with few, if any, changes in the work setting; no
public contact; no more than occasional contact with
co-workers and supervisors; no joint, team, or tandem tasks;
and no more than a second grade reading and math level
(TR. 15-16). Then, at step four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff
had no past relevant work. (TR. 22). Finally, at step five,
the ALJ presented a vocational expert (VE) with a
hypothetical question including the limitations found in
Plaintiff's RFC to determine whether there were jobs in
the national economy that Plaintiff could perform. (TR. 67-
69). The VE identified three jobs from the Dictionary of
Occupational Titles (DOT). (TR. 68-69). The ALJ adopted the
VE's testimony and concluded that Ms. Hutson was not
disabled based on her ability to perform the identified jobs.
appeal, Plaintiff alleges the ALJ erred in: (1) failing to
discuss the relevant factors required in C.F.R. Part 404,
Subpart P, Appendix 1, § 12.00(A), (C); (2) failing to
include functional limitations in the RFC stemming from her
severe antisocial behavior; (3) ignoring Plaintiff's GAF
score; (4) failing to consider whether Plaintiff could
perform the relevant work on a consistent basis; (5) crafting
an improper question to the VE; and (6) finding Plaintiff
could perform the national jobs with a limitation to second
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Court reviews the Commissioner's final “decision to
determin[e] whether the factual findings are supported by
substantial evidence in the record and whether the correct
legal standards were applied.” Wilson v.
Astrue, 602 F.3d 1136, 1140 (10th Cir. 2010).
“Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a