United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
DONNA S. TRUSSELL, Plaintiff,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KIMBERLY E. WEST, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Donna S. Trussell (“Claimant”) requests judicial
review of the decision of the Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration (the “Commissioner”)
denying Claimant's applications 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 57 years old at the time of the ALJ's decision.
Claimant completed her high school education and attended
cosmetology school. Claimant has worked in the past as a
supervisor of production in a factory. Claimant alleges an
inability to work beginning March 5, 2012 due to limitations
caused by degenerative arthritis, diabetes, neuropathy,
depression, short-term memory loss, high blood pressure, and
the partial colon removal which brought about bowel problems.
9, 2013, Claimant protectively filed for disability insurance
benefits under Title II (42 U.S.C. § 401, et
seq.) of the Social Security Act. Claimant's
application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. On
April 6, 2015, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)
Jeffrey S. Wolfe conducted a hearing by video with Claimant
appearing in Poteau, Oklahoma and the ALJ presiding from
Tulsa, Oklahoma. By decision dated July 22, 2015, the ALJ
found that Claimant was not disabled during the relevant
period and denied Claimant's requests for benefits. On
September 26, 2016, the Appeals Council denied review of the
ALJ's decision. Thus, 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 his decision at step four of the sequential evaluation.
He determined that while Claimant suffered from severe
impairments, she did not meet or equal a listing and retained
the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to
perform her past relevant work. At step five, the ALJ found
Claimant could perform sedentary work.
Alleged for Review
asserts the ALJ committed error in (1) failing to properly
evaluate Claimant's credibility; and (2) failing to reach
a proper RFC supported by substantial evidence.