Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Suhr v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma

September 13, 2019

CRYSTAL SUHR, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Kimberly E. West, United States Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff Crystal Suhr (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 recommendation of the undersigned that the Commissioner's decision be REVERSED and the case REMANDED for further proceedings.

         Social Security Law and Standard of Review

         Disability 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.[1]

         Judicial 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.

         Claimant's Background

         Claimant was 34 years old at the time of the ALJ's decision.Claimant obtained a bachelor's degree in psychology. Claimant worked in the past as a bartender/waitress and office manager. Claimant alleges an inability to work beginning April 3, 2014 due to limitations resulting from pelvic nerve injury, Lyme disease, lupus, arthritis, fibromyalgia, pancreatitis, brain fog, concentration problems, and vision problems.

         Procedural History

         On November 6, 2014, Claimant protectively filed for disability insurance benefits under Title II (42 U.S.C. § 401, et seq.) of the Social Security Act. Claimant's application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. On July 18, 2016, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Elizabeth B. 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 issued an unfavorable decision. On February 12, 2018, the Appeals Council denied review. 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.

         Decision of the Administrative Law Judge

         The ALJ made her decision at step five of the sequential evaluation. She determined that while Claimant suffered from severe impairments, she retained the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform sedentary work with limitations.

         Error Alleged for Review

         Claimant asserts the ALJ committed error in (1) failing to include all of her limitations contained in the opinions of the consultative professionals; (2) failing to state the weight give to a psychological consultative examiner; (3) improperly relying upon the lack of mental health treatment to conclude she did not suffer from a severe mental impairment; and (4) failing to conduct a proper analysis of the paragraph B criteria in assessing the severity of Claimant's mental impairments at steps two and three.

         Evaluation of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.