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 disability insurance benefits 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. § 636(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 REVERSES AND
REMANDS the Commissioner's decision.
and on reconsideration, the Social Security Administration
(SSA) denied Plaintiff's application for disability
insurance benefits. Following an administrative hearing, an
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an unfavorable
decision. (TR. 22-29). The Appeals Council denied
Plaintiff's request for review. (TR. 8-15). Thus, the
decision of the ALJ became the final decision of the
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. §
404.1520. At step one, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had
not engaged in substantial gainful activity since August 1,
2012, the alleged disability onset date. (TR. 24). At step
two, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had the following
severe impairments: shoulder impingement, degenerative disc
disease, an affective disorder, and an anxiety disorder. (TR.
24). 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. 24).
four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not capable of
performing his past relevant work. (TR. 27). The ALJ further
concluded that Plaintiff retained the residual functional
capacity (RFC) to perform light work with the following
[Plaintiff] can occasionally stoop, lift, crouch, reach
bilaterally overhead, and use . . . stairs and ramps.
[Plaintiff] can never climb ladder[s], ropes, and scaffolds.
[Plaintiff] can have no interaction with general public and
only occasional interaction with supervisors and co-workers.
this RFC, the ALJ made additional findings at step five. The
ALJ consulted with a vocational expert (VE) to determine
whether there were other jobs in the national economy that
Plaintiff could perform. Given the limitations presented by
the ALJ, the VE identified three jobs from the Dictionary of
Occupational Titles. (TR. 47-48). Relying upon the testimony
of the VE, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled
based on his ability to perform the identified jobs. (TR.
appeal, Plaintiff alleges the ALJ erred in (1) failing to
consider medical records dated before the date of onset and
after the date last insured; and (2) failing to include
sufficient limitations in the RFC. (ECF No. 19:19, 22).