United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
SUZANNE MITCHELL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE IUDGE
Irene Roberts (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. 11, 13.
careful review of the record (AR), the parties' briefs,
and the relevant authority, the undersigned reverses and
remands the Commissioner's final decision. See 42
U.S.C. § 405(g).
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 [s]he can
no longer engage in [her] 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. Id.
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 13-24;
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 first, by osteoarthritis of the
left hip; second, by osteoarthritis of the right hip; third,
by osteoarthritis of the left shoulder; fourth, by
osteoarthritis of the right shoulder; fifth, by
osteoarthritis of the left foot; and sixth, by obesity;
(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 unable to perform any past relevant work;
(5) could perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in
the national economy, such as food and beverage order clerk,