United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
ROBERT E. BODELL, II, Plaintiff,
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
KIMBERLY E. WEST, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Robert E. Bodell, II (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
finding of this Court that the Commissioner's decision
should be and is AFFIRMED.
Security Law and Standard of Review
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.
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.
was 45 years old at the time of the ALJ's decision.
Claimant obtained his GED. Claimant has worked in the past as
a laborer, stocker, HVAC installer, and cab driver. Claimant
alleges an inability to work beginning November 28, 2014 due
to limitations resulting from diverticulitis, peritonitis,
colon resection, bacterial cyst, and an open abdominal wound.
February 17, 2015, Claimant protectively filed for
protectively filed for disability insurance benefits under
Title II (42 U.S.C. § 401, et seq.) and for
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 July 19, 2016, Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) Elizabeth Dunlap conducted an
administrative hearing by video with Claimant appearing in
Paris, Texas and the ALJ presiding from Dallas, Texas. On May
2, 2017, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision. The Appeals
Council denied review on September 14, 2017. 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.
of the Administrative Law Judge
made her decision at step five of the sequential evaluation.
She determined that while Claimant suffered from severe
impairments, he did not meet a listing and retained the
residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform
sedentary work with limitations.
Alleged for Review
asserts the ALJ committed error in (1) failing to properly
consider, evaluate, and weigh the medical evidence; (2)
failing to adequately account for all of Claimant's
impairments in the hypothetical questioning of the vocational
expert and in the RFC; and (3) failing to properly consider
and account for Claimant's obesity.
of the Medical ...