United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
TAUNYA L. MOSS, Plaintiff,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KIMBERLY E. WEST, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Taunya L. Moss (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 recommendation of the
undersigned that the Commissioner's decision be AFFIRMED.
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 36 years old at the time of the ALJ's decision.
Claimant completed her high school education. Claimant has no
prior relevant work. Claimant alleges an inability to work
beginning December 19, 2013 due to limitations resulting from
right leg problems, lumbosacral spine disorder, depression,
anxiety, and Hepatitis C.
December 23, 2013, Claimant protectively filed for
supplemental security income pursuant to Title XVI (42 U.S.C.
§ 1381, et seq.) of the Social Security
Claimant's application was denied initially and upon
reconsideration. On November 17, 2015, Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”) B.D. Crutchfield conducted an
administrative hearing by video with Claimant appearing in
Poteau, Oklahoma and the ALJ presiding in Tulsa, Oklahoma. On
December 16, 2015, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision. On
January 17, 2017, the Appeals Council denied review. 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 her decision at step five of the sequential evaluation.
She determined that while Claimant suffered from severe
impairments, she retained the RFC to perform light work with
Alleged for Review
asserts the ALJ committed error in (1) failing to properly
consider her claims of pain and credibility; (2) reaching an
RFC did not contain all of Claimant's limitations; and
(3) omitting an analysis of Claimant's obesity and its
effect upon her RFC.