United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BERNARD M. JONES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Diana Posey, seeks judicial review of the Social Security
Administration's (SSA) denial of her applications for
disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security
income (SSI). Chief United States District Judge Tim
DeGiusti has referred the matter for proposed findings and
recommendations. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
and (C). The Commissioner has filed the Administrative Record
(AR), [Doc. No. 13], and both parties have briefed their
positions.For the reasons set forth below, it is
recommended that the Commissioner's decision be affirmed.
November 24, 2017, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued
an unfavorable decision finding Plaintiff was not disabled
and, therefore, not entitled to DIB or SSI. AR 15-30. The
Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review.
Id. at 1-6. Accordingly, the ALJ's decision
constitutes the Commissioner's final decision. See
Krauser v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 1324, 1327 (10th Cir. 2011).
Plaintiff timely commenced this action for judicial review.
The ALJ's Decision
followed the five-step sequential evaluation process required
by agency regulations. See Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d
1048, 1051 (10th Cir. 2009) (explaining process); see
also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. The ALJ
first determined Plaintiff met the insured status requirement
through March 31, 2018 and has not engaged in substantial
gainful activity since November 20, 2015, her alleged onset
date. AR 17.
two, the ALJ determined Plaintiff suffers from the following
severe impairments: “COPD, history of hip surgery,
ovarian cysts, degenerative disc disease, status post
multiple injury sustained in a remote motor vehicle accident
by history, arthritis, obesity, [post-traumatic stress
disorder], generalized anxiety disorder, and panic disorder
without agoraphobia.” Id. Then, at step three,
the ALJ found Plaintiff's impairments do not meet or
medically equal any of the impairments listed at 20 C.F.R.
Part 404, Subpart P, App. 1. Id. at 18-19.
next determined Plaintiff's residual functional capacity
(RFC), concluding that:
[she can] lift and carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds
frequently. [She] can sit for about 6 hours during an
eight-hour workday and can stand and walk for about 6 hours
during an eight-hour workday. [She] can occasionally climb,
balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. [She] is to avoid
concentrated exposure to dusts, fumes, gases, odors, and poor
ventilation. [She] can understand, remember, and carry out
simple and some, but not all more complex tasks involving
objects and/or non-complex data with routine supervision with
the capacity to perform 1-4 step instructions for two-hour
periods over the course of a normal workday/workweek. [She]
can respond appropriately to supervisors and co-workers on a
superficial work basis and can perform work where interaction
with others is incidental to the work performed. [She] can
have no contact with the general public. [She] can respond to
usual work situations.
Id. at 20.
at step four, the ALJ determined Plaintiff can perform her
past work as a can line operator, both as she performed it
and as performed in the national economy and is therefore not
disabled for purposes of the Social Security Act.
Id. at 29-30.
Claims Presented for Judicial Review
alleges that the ALJ: (1) erred in finding Plaintiff can
perform her past work as a can line operator, and (2) gave a
consultative examiner's opinion only partial weight
without identifying any evidence to support his decision.
See Pl.'s Br. at 3-8. The Court examines these
allegations below in reverse order.