United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
GEORGIA A. GEIMAUSADDLE, Plaintiff,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
SUZANNE MITCHELL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
A. Geimausaddle (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. 14, 19. 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 an alternative work
activity and that this specific type of job exists in the
national economy.” Id. (citation omitted).
assigned to Plaintiff's case applied the standard
regulatory analysis and concluded Plaintiff had not met her
burden of proof. AR 22-33; 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 degenerative disc
disease, second, by degenerative joint disease, third, by
hypertension, fourth, by anxiety disorder, and fifth, by
(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 light
work as defined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(b) and
416.967(b) with additional limitations;
(4) could perform her past relevant work as a weigher
(5) could perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in
the national economy, such as small product assembler, and
inspector packer; and so,
(6) had not been under a disability, as defined in the Social
Security Act, from June 7, 2012 through July 29, 2015.
Appeals Council action.
Social Security Administration's (SSA) Appeals Council
reviewed Plaintiff's additional evidence, and determined
it, in consideration with the entire record, provided no
basis for changing the ALJ's decision. Id. at 2;
see also Id. at 1-6. The ALJ's decision
is thus the Commissioner's final decision. See
Krauser v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 1324, 1327 (10th Cir. 2011).
Judicial review of the ...