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
applications 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
applications initially and on reconsideration. Following an
administrative hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
issued an unfavorable decision. (TR. 10-20). The Appeals
Council denied Plaintiff's request for review. (TR. 1-4).
Thus, the decision of the ALJ became the final decision of
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. §§
404.1520 & 416.920. At step one, the ALJ determined that
Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity
(SGA) since May 1, 2013, the alleged disability onset date.
(TR. 12). At step two, the ALJ determined that Mr. Giroux had
the following severe impairments: borderline intellectual
functioning, dysthymic disorder, and cognitive disorder, NOS.
(TR. 12). 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 he could:
[P]erform a full range of work at all exertional levels, but
with the following non-exertional limitations: the claimant
can understand, remember, and carry out simple, routine, and
repetitive tasks; the claimant can respond appropriately to
supervisors, coworkers, and usual work situations, but he can
have no contact with the general public.
16). Then, “[u]nder the expedited process, ” the
ALJ moved past step four, and at step five, he presented
several hypothetical questions to a vocational expert (VE) to
determine whether there were jobs in the national economy
that Plaintiff could perform. (TR. 18, 52). The VE identified
three jobs from the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. (TR.
52). The ALJ adopted the VE's testimony and concluded
that Mr. Giroux was not disabled based on his ability to
perform the identified jobs. (TR. 19).
appeal, Plaintiff alleges the ALJ erred in: (1) assessing the
consultative evaluation opinion from Dr. Julie Wallace; (2)
failing to consider whether Plaintiff could perform the
relevant work on a consistent basis; (3) improperly relying
on Plaintiff's daily activities; and (4) crafting an
improper question to the VE.
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