United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SUZANNE MITCHELL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Bozworth (Plaintiff) brings this action for judicial review
of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision
that she was not “disabled” under the Social
Security Act. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g),
423(d)(1)(A). United States District Judge Charles Goodwin
has referred the matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge
for proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B), (b)(3) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Doc. 14.
maintains substantial evidence does not support the ALJ's
decision, focusing on three providers' medical reports.
After careful review of the record (AR), the parties'
briefs, and the relevant authority, the undersigned
recommends the entry of judgment affirming the
Commissioner's final decision. See 42 U.S.C.
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 [her] 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 h[er] 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 16-27; 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). The ALJ found
(1) had severe multiple sclerosis; depression; and anxiety;
(2) had no impairment or combination of impairments that met
or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed
(3) had the residual functional capacity to perform light
work with the following restrictions: no more than frequent
handling and fingering; limited to simple and detailed tasks
and instructions, with no more than occasional interaction