United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KIMBERLY E. WEST, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff
Bobby Joel Holleyman (the “Claimant”) requests
judicial review of the decision of the Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration (the
“Commissioner”) denying Claimant's
application 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.
Social
Security Law and Standard of Review
Disability
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.[1]
Judicial
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.
Claimant's
Background
Claimant
was 60 years old at the time of the ALJ's decision.
Claimant obtained his GED. Claimant has worked in the past as
a general laborer fixing bridges and roads, oil field worker,
and truck driver. Claimant alleges an inability to work
beginning December 12, 2013 due to limitations resulting from
mild strokes causing limitations, breathing problems,
numbness on the right side, and high blood pressure.
Procedural
History
On
September 19, 2014, Claimant protectively filed for
disability insurance benefits under Title II (42 U.S.C.
§ 401, et seq.) and supplemental security
income pursuant to Title XVI (42 U.S.C. §1381, et
seq.) of the Social Security Act. Claimant's
applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration.
On September 12, 2016, Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) Kenton Felton conducted an administrative
hearing by video with Claimant appearing in Ardmore, Oklahoma
and the ALJ presiding from Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. On
February 12, 2016, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision. On
October 18, 2017, the Appeals Council denied review. As a
result, the decision of the ALJ represents the
Commissioner's final decision for purposes of further
appeal. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.981, 416.1481.
Decision
of the Administrative Law Judge
The ALJ
made his decision at step five of the sequential evaluation.
He determined that while Claimant suffered from severe
impairments, he retained the residual functional capacity
(“RFC”) to perform a full range of work at all
exertional levels, with certain non-exertional limitations.
Error
Alleged for Review
Claimant
asserts the ALJ committed error in failing to consider the
impact of Claimant's fatigue and other symptoms
associated with his microvascular ischemic disease.
Consideration
of ...