United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
LINDA M. HENSON, Plaintiff,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
SUZANNE MITCHELL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
M. Henson (Plaintiff) brings this action for judicial review
of the Commissioner of Social Security's (Commissioner)
final decision that she was not “disabled” under
the terms of the Social Security Act. See 42 U.S.C.
§§ 405(g), 423(d)(1)(A). The parties have consented
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to proceed before a United
States Magistrate Judge. Docs. 5, 11.
careful review of the record (AR), the parties' briefs,
and the relevant authority, the undersigned affirms the
Commissioner's final decision.See 42 U.S.C. §
Social Security Act defines “disability” as the
“inability to engage in any substantial gainful
activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or
mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or
which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous
period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. §
423(d)(1)(A). “This twelve-month duration requirement
applies to the claimant's inability to engage in any
substantial gainful activity, and not just his underlying
impairment.” Lax v. Astrue, 489 F.3d 1080,
1084 (10th Cir. 2007) (citing Barnhart v. Walton,
535 U.S. 212, 218-19 (2002)).
Burden of proof.
“bears the burden of establishing a disability”
and of “ma[king] a prima facie showing that he can no
longer engage in his prior work activity.” Turner
v. Heckler, 754 F.2d 326, 328 (10th Cir. 1985). If
Plaintiff makes that prima facie showing, the burden of proof
then shifts to the Commissioner to show Plaintiff retains the
capacity to perform a different type of work and that such a
specific type of job exists in the national economy.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) findings.
assigned to Plaintiff's case applied the standard
regulatory analysis in order to decide whether Plaintiff was
disabled during the relevant time period. AR 20-26;
see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4),
416.920(a)(4); see also Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d
1048, 1052 (10th Cir. 2009) (describing the five-step
process). Specifically, the ALJ found Plaintiff:
(1) was severely impaired by first, degenerative disc
disease; second, by obesity; third, by hyperthyroid; fourth,
by headaches; fifth, by PTSD; and sixth, by major depressive
(2) had no impairment or combination of impairments that met
or medically equaled the severity of a listed impairment;
(3) had the residual functional capacity(RFC) for light
work with some limitations;
(4) was able to perform past relevant work as kitchen helper
and housekeeper; and so,
(5) had not been under a disability as defined by the Social
Security Act since April 12, 2015 through the date of the