United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SUZANNE MITCHELL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Way (Plaintiff) brings this action for judicial review of the
Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's
(Commissioner) final decision she was not
“disabled” under the terms of the Social Security
Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), 423(d)(1)(A).
United States District Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti referred
this matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for
proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. §§
636(b)(1)(B), (b)(3) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Doc. 15.
Following a careful review of the parties' briefs, the
administrative record (AR),  and the relevant authority, the
undersigned recommends the court affirm the
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 [she] 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 to decide whether Plaintiff was disabled
during the relevant timeframe. AR 67-80; see 20
C.F.R. § 416.920(a); see also Wall v. Astrue,
561 F.3d 1048, 1052 (10th Cir. 2009) (describing the
five-step process). Specifically, the ALJ found Plaintiff:
(1) had the severe impairments of degenerative disc disease
(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 to perform
sedentary work, was able to lift, carry, push and/or pull ten
pounds occasionally and less than ten pounds frequently, sit
for the total of six hours throughout an eight-hour workday,
and stand and/or walk the total of two hours throughout an
eight-hour workday, with occasional kneeling, crouching,