United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
BERNARD M. JONES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Kristi Lynn Sly, seeks judicial review of the Social Security
Administration's 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. 13], and both parties have briefed
their positions. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
affirms the Commissioner's decision.
19, 2016, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an
unfavorable decision finding Plaintiff is not disabled and,
therefore, not entitled to SSI. AR 22-37. The Appeals Council
denied Plaintiff's request for review. Id. at
1-5. 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. The ALJ first determined
Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity
since September 4, 2014, her application date. AR 24.
two, the ALJ determined Plaintiff suffers from the following
severe impairments: obesity, degenerative disc disease,
history of sinus tachycardia, hypertension, degenerative
joint disease of the knees, and depression. Id.
Then, at step three, the ALJ found 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 25.
next determined Plaintiff's residual functional capacity
(RFC), concluding that she:
[can] occasionally lift and/or carry 10 pounds, frequently
lift and/or carry up to 10 pounds, stand and/or walk at least
2 hours in an 8-hour workday, sit for at least 6 hours in an
8-hour workday, and is limited to simple, repetitive tasks,
can relate to supervisors and coworkers only superficially,
and should not be asked to work with the public.
Id. at 26.
four, the ALJ determined Plaintiff has no past relevant work,
id. at 35, and at step five, relying on a vocational
expert's (VE) testimony, the ALJ found Plaintiff can
perform other work existing in significant numbers in the
national economy. Id. at 36. Therefore, the ALJ
concluded that Plaintiff is not disabled for purposes of the
Social Security Act. Id. at 37.
Claims Presented for Judicial Review
alleges the ALJ erred in: (1) finding she can perform work
existing in significant numbers in the national economy, and
(2) assessing her credibility. See Pl.'s Br. at