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
application for supplemental security income 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.
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 AFFRIMS the
and on reconsideration, the Social Security Administration
denied Plaintiff's application for benefits. Following an
administrative hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
issued an unfavorable decision. (TR. 10-18). The Appeals
Council denied Plaintiff's request for review. (TR. 1-3).
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. § 416.920.
At step one, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had not
engaged in substantial gainful activity since March 31, 2014,
the application date. (TR. 12). At step two, the ALJ
determined Ms. Herring had the following severe impairments:
affective disorder, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress
disorder (PTSD). (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).
four, the ALJ concluded that Ms. Herring retained the
residual functional capacity (RFC) to:
[P]erform a full range of work at all exertional levels but
with the following nonexertional limitations: Work must be
limited to simple, routine, and repetitive tasks. The
claimant can occasionally have interaction with coworkers and
supervisors and only superficial and no direct contact with
the public. The claimant is able to read only simple language
(TR. 15). At step four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had no
past relevant work. (TR. 17).
result, the ALJ proceeded to step five. There, the ALJ
presented several limitations to a vocational expert (VE) to
determine whether there were other jobs in the national
economy that Plaintiff could perform with her RFC. (TR. 51).
Given the limitations, the VE identified three jobs from the
Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT). (TR. 51-52).
adopted the testimony of the VE and concluded that Ms.
Herring was not disabled based on her ability to perform the
identified jobs. (TR. 17-18).
appeal, Plaintiff alleges the ALJ erred in her consideration
of: (1) evidence of Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF)
scores from Physician's Assistant Richard Hanes and Drs.
Fatema Haque and Rajeswara Bhupathiraju and (2) an opinion
from consultative psychologist Dr. Cynthia Repanshek.