United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SUZANNE MITCHELL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Moody (Plaintiff) brings this action for judicial review of
the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's final
decision he 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 Stephen P.
Friot has referred the 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). 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 he can no
longer engage in his 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.
Administrative Law Judge's findings.
assigned to Plaintiff's case applied the standard
regulatory analysis to decide whether Plaintiff was disabled
during the relevant timeframe. AR 11-22; see 20
C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4), see also Wall v.
Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048, 1052 (10th Cir. 2009) (describing
the five-step process). Specifically, the ALJ found
(1) had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since his
alleged onset date of June 14, 2012;
(2) had the severe impairments of gout; arthritis;
schizophrenia, undifferentiated; major depressive disorder,
recurrent, severe, without psychotic features; and cannabis
(3) had no impairment or combination of impairments that met
or medically equaled the severity of a listed impairment;
(4) had the residual functional capacity to perform light
work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) except he can
lift/carry/push and pull 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds
frequently; he never can climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds or
crawl; he can push or pull occasionally with the upper
extremities and occasionally can reach overhead; and he can
understand, remember, and carry out simple and detailed
(5) could perform his past relevant work as a laundry worker
and a fast food worker;
(6) was not disabled. AR 14-22.
Appeals Council's findings.
SSA's Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for
review on May 9, 2018, so the ALJ's unfavorable decision
is the Commissioner's final decision in this case. AR
1-5; see Krauser v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 1324, 1327
(10th Cir. 2011).
Judicial review of the ...