United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
SHERRY A. SCHIEBERT, Plaintiff,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
BERNARD M. JONES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Sherry A. Schiebert, seeks judicial review of the Social
Security Administration's (SSA) denial of her application
for supplemental security income (SSI). The parties have
consented to the exercise of jurisdiction over this matter by
a United States Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c). The Commissioner has filed the Administrative
Record (AR) [Doc. No. 12], and both parties have briefed
their positions. For the reasons stated below, the Court
reverses the Commissioner's decision and remands the
matter for further proceedings.
February 1, 2016, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an
unfavorable decision finding Plaintiff was not disabled and,
therefore, not entitled to SSI. AR 11-21. The Appeals Council
denied Plaintiff's request for review. Id. at
1-3. Accordingly, the ALJ's decision constitutes the
Commissioner's final decision. See Krauser v.
Astrue, 638 F.3d 1324, 1327 (10th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff
timely commenced this action for judicial review.
The ALJ's Decision
followed the five-step sequential evaluation process required
by agency regulations. See Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d
1048, 1051 (10th Cir. 2009) (explaining process); see
also 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. Following this process,
the ALJ first determined that Plaintiff has not engaged in
substantial gainful activity since March 20, 2014, her
amended alleged onset date. AR 13.
two, the ALJ determined Plaintiff suffers from the following
severe impairments: obesity, borderline intellectual
function, depression, arthritis, and chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease. Id. At step three, the ALJ found
that Plaintiff's impairments do not meet or medically
equal any of the impairments listed at 20 C.F.R. Part 404,
Subpart P, App. 1. Id. at 16-18.
next determined Plaintiff's residual functional capacity
(RFC), concluding that:
[Plaintiff can] perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR
416.967(a) except work must be limited to simple, routine,
and repetitive tasks. [Plaintiff] can occasionally interact
with co-workers, supervisors, and public. [Plaintiff] must be
free of production rate pace.
Id. at 18.
four, the ALJ determined Plaintiff has no past relevant work,
id. at 19, and at step five, relying on a vocational
expert's (VE) testimony, the ALJ found Plaintiff can
perform work existing in significant numbers in the national
economy. Id. at 20-21. Therefore, the ALJ concluded
that Plaintiff is not disabled for purposes of the Social
Security Act. Id. at 21.
Claims Presented for Judicial Review
alleges the ALJ erred in: (1) either ignoring or rejecting
the consultative examiner's opinion that during an
eight-hour workday, Plaintiff can only sit for a total of
three hours, stand for a total of three hours, and walk for a
total of two hours; and (2) either ignoring or rejecting the
State agency psychologists' opinions that Plaintiff is
capable of performing only “simple 1-2 step
instructions.” Pl.'s Br. at 7-14.