Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Satterfield v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma

March 8, 2019

JAMES R. SATTERFIELD, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          KIMBERLY E. WEST UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff James R. Satterfield (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 REVERSED and the case REMANDED for further proceedings.

         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 50 years old at the time of the ALJ's latest decision. Claimant completed his high school education. Claimant has worked in the past as a repairman and assembly line worker. Claimant alleges an inability to work beginning December 10, 2010 due to limitations resulting from scoliosis, degenerative disc disease, anxiety disorder, depression, osteoarthritis, hypertension, and a hand disorder.

         Procedural History

         On June 13, 2011, 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 January 23, 2013, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Bernard Porter conducted an administrative hearing in Poteau, Oklahoma. On March 15, 2013, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision. On May 2, 2014, the Appeals Council denied review. The ALJ's decision, however, was reversed and the case was remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings by Order of this Court on September 29, 2015.

         On remand, ALJ Christopher Hunt conducted a further administrative hearing on June 1, 2017. He entered another unfavorable decision on August 21, 2017. Claimant appealed the ALJ's decision directly. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.984, 416.1484.

         Decision of the Administrative Law Judge

         The ALJ made his decision at step four of the sequential evaluation. He determined that while Claimant suffered from severe impairments, he retained the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform his past relevant work. He also determined Claimant could perform light work.

         Error Alleged for Review

         Claimant asserts the ALJ committed error in (1) failing to properly assess his credibility as to pain; (2) failing to properly evaluate the opinion of Dr. Theresa Horton; and (3) ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.