United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
BERNARD M. JONES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Glenn Dale Godsey, seeks judicial review of the Social
Security Administration’s denial of his disability
insurance benefits (DIB). The parties have consented to the
exercise of jurisdiction over this matter by a United States
Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The
Commissioner has filed the Administrative Record (AR), [Doc.
No. 12], and both parties have briefed their
positions. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
affirms the Commissioner’s decision.
November 27, 2017, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued
an unfavorable decision finding Plaintiff is not disabled
and, therefore, not entitled to DIB. AR 12-20. The Appeals
Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review.
Id. 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 multi-step sequential evaluation process
required by agency regulations. See Fischer-Ross v.
Barnhart, 431 F.3d 729, 731 (10th Cir. 2005) (explaining
the multi-step sequential evaluation process); see
also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The ALJ first determined
Plaintiff met the insured status requirement through December
31, 2018 and has not engaged in substantial gainful activity
since February 5, 2016, his alleged onset date. AR 14.
two, the ALJ determined Plaintiff suffers from the following
severe impairments: osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and
degenerative arthritis. Id. 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, Appendix 1. Id. at 16.
next determined Plaintiff’s residual functional
capacity (RFC), concluding Plaintiff could perform a full
range of light work. Id. Finally, relying on the
vocational expert’s (VE) testimony, the ALJ found
Plaintiff can perform his past relevant work as a hydro
pneumatic tester and is therefore not disabled for purposes
of the Social Security Act. Id. at 19.
Standard of Review
review of the Commissioner’s final decision is limited
to determining whether substantial evidence supports the
factual findings and whether the correct legal standards were
applied. See Poppa v. Astrue, 569 F.3d 1167, 1169
(10th Cir. 2009). “Substantial evidence is such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.” Doyal v.
Barnhart, 331 F.3d 758, 760 (10th Cir. 2003) (quotation
omitted). While the Court considers whether the ALJ followed
the applicable rules of law, it does not reweigh the evidence
or substitute its own judgment for that of the Commissioner.
See Bowman v. Astrue, 511 F.3d 1270, 1272 (10th Cir.
2008) (quotations and citations omitted). Additionally, the
Court may find an ALJ’s error harmless, if “based
on material the ALJ did at least consider (just not
properly), [the court] could confidently say that no
reasonable administrative factfinder, following the correct
analysis, could have resolved the factual matter in any other
way[.]” Allen v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1140, 1145
(10th Cir. 2004). The burden to show prejudicial error on
appeal rests with Plaintiff. See Shinseki v.
Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 409 (2009) (“[T]he burden
of showing that an error is harmful normally falls upon the
party attacking the agency’s determination.”).
Claims Presented for Judicial Review
raises two claims for relief, arguing the ALJ erred in (1)
improperly rejecting the opinion of Dr. Seth H. Switzer,
M.D.,  a treating physician and (2) evaluating
Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. See
Pl.’s Br. at 7.
The ALJ’s Treatment of Dr. Switzer’s