United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BERNARD M. JONES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Tony Haskins, seeks judicial review of the Social Security
Administration's denial of his application for disability
insurance benefits (DIB). United States District Judge Scott
L. Palk 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. 10], and both parties have briefed their
positions. For the reasons set forth below, it is
recommended that the Commissioner's decision be affirmed.
April 4, 2018, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an
unfavorable decision finding Plaintiff was not disabled and,
therefore, not entitled to DIB. AR 83-91. The Appeals Council
denied Plaintiff's request for review. Id. at
6-11. 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 Wall v. Astrue,
561 F.3d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir. 2009) (explaining process);
see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The ALJ first
determined Plaintiff meets the insured status requirement
through December 31, 2021 and has not engaged in substantial
gainful activity since March 1, 2016, his alleged onset date.
steps two and three, the ALJ determined Plaintiff suffers
from severe degenerative disc disease but that it does not
meet or medically equal any of the impairments listed at 20
C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App. 1. Id. at 86.
next determined Plaintiff's residual functional capacity
(RFC), concluding that:
[he can] perform medium work . . . except lift, carry, push,
pull 50 pounds occasionally, sit 6 hours total in an 8 hour
workday, stand/walk 4 hours in an 8 hour workday.
at step four, the ALJ determined Plaintiff can perform his
past relevant work as a warehouse worker and is therefore not
disabled for purposes of the Social Security Act. See
Claim Presented for Judicial Review
to Plaintiff, the ALJ gave great weight to the consultative
examiner's findings but then ignored the evidence
relating to Plaintiff's limited range of motion.
See Pl.'s Br. at 3-7.