United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
SUZANNE MITCHELL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Marie Kelley (Plaintiff) brings this action for judicial
review of the Defendant Acting Commissioner of Social
Security's (Commissioner) final decision she was not
“disabled” under the terms of the Social Security
Act. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g),
423(d)(1)(A). The parties have consented under 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c) to proceed before a United States Magistrate
Judge. Docs. 12, 13.Following a careful review of the
parties' briefs, the administrative record (AR), and the
relevant authority, the court affirms the Commissioner's
Social Security Act defines “disability” as the
“inability to engage in any substantial gainful
activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or
mental impairment that can be expected to result in death or
which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous
period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. §
423(d)(1)(A). “This twelve-month duration requirement
applies to the claimant's inability to engage in any
substantial gainful activity, and not just his underlying
impairment.” Lax v. Astrue, 489 F.3d 1080,
1084 (10th Cir. 2007) (citing Barnhart v. Walton,
535 U.S. 212, 218-19 (2002)).
Burden of proof.
“bears the burden of establishing a disability”
and of “ma[king] a prima facie showing that he can no
longer engage in his prior work activity.” Turner
v. Heckler, 754 F.2d 326, 328 (10th Cir. 1985). If
Plaintiff makes that prima facie showing, the burden of proof
then shifts to the Commissioner to show Plaintiff retains the
capacity to perform a different type of work and that such a
specific type of job exists in the national economy.
assigned to Plaintiff's case applied the standard
regulatory analysis and concluded Plaintiff had not met her
burden of proof. AR 19-26; see 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4); see also Wall
v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048, 1052 (10th Cir. 2009)
(describing the five-step analysis). Specifically, the ALJ
(1) was severely impaired, first, by dysfunction of major
joints, second, by obesity, third, by an affective disorder,
fourth, by a pain disorder with both psychological factors
and a general medical condition, fifth, by hypertension,
sixth, by right thigh pain/meralgia paresthetica, and
seventh, by knee pain;
(2) did not have an impairment or combination of impairments
that met or medically equaled the severity of a listed
(3) had the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform
sedentary work, with some limitations;
(4) could perform her past relevant work as a telephone
operator; so, she
(5) had not been under a disability, as defined in the Social
Security Act, from January 1, 2012 through February 12,
Appeals Council action.
Social Security Administration's (SSA) Appeals Council
found no reason to review the ALJ's decision.
Id. at 1-5. So, the ALJ's decision is the
Commissioner's final decision. See Krauser v.
Astrue, 638 F.3d 1324, 1327 (10th Cir. 2011).
Judicial review of the ...