United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
SUZANNE MITCHELL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Rae Prentiss (Plaintiff) brings this action for judicial
review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final
decision that she was not “disabled” under the
terms of the Social Security Act. See 42 U.S.C.
§§ 405(g), 423(d)(1)(A). The parties have consented
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to proceed before a United
States Magistrate Judge. Docs. 10, 15. After a careful
review of the record (AR), the parties' briefs, and the
relevant authority, the court affirms the Commissioner's
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 h[er] 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 [s]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. Id.
Administrative Law Judge's findings.
assigned to Plaintiff's case applied the standard
regulatory analysis in order to decide whether Plaintiff was
disabled during the relevant timeframe. AR 15-24;
see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4),
416.920(a)(4); 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 not engaged in substantial gainful activity since
October 19, 2011;
(2) had the severe impairments of an anxiety disorder; a
major depressive disorder; and chronic neck pain with
radicular symptoms into the hands;
(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 for light work
with various additional exertional and nonexertional
(5) could perform her past relevant work as a hotel
housekeeper; and, in the alternative,
(6) could also perform the jobs of office helper; office
cleaner; and bottling line attendant; and thus,
(7) had not been under a disability as defined by the Social
Security Act ...