United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
SUZANNE MITCHELL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE IUDGE
Alicia Haring (Plaintiff) brings this action for judicial
review of the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's
final decision she was not “disabled” under 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. 13, 17. Following a careful review of the
parties' briefs, the administrative record (AR), 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 [she] can
no longer engage in [her] 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 to decide whether Plaintiff was disabled
during the relevant timeframe. AR 12-24; 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). The ALJ found Plaintiff:
(1) had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since her
alleged onset date of January 14, 2014;
(2) had the severe impairments of hypertension, lower back
pain, unspecified trauma/stressor related disorder, r/o mild
neurocognitive disorder, and depression;
(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 restrictions;
(5) could not perform any past relevant work, but could
perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the
national economy, such as data entry clerk, bakery worker,
and production assembler; and thus
(6) was not disabled.
Appeals Council's findings.
Social Security Administration's Appeals Council denied
Plaintiff's request for review, so the ALJ's
unfavorable decision is the Commissioner's final decision
here. Id. at 1-5; see Krauser v. Astrue,
638 F.3d 1324, 1327 (10th Cir. 2011).
Judicial review of the ...