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.

Haskins v. Saul

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

October 7, 2019

TONY HASKINS, Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          BERNARD M. JONES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff, 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.[1] For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that the Commissioner's decision be affirmed.

         I. Procedural Background

         On 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.

         II. The ALJ's Decision

         The ALJ 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. AR 85.

         At 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.

         The ALJ 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.

Id.

         Finally, 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 id. at

         III. Claim Presented for Judicial Review

         According 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.

         IV. Stand ...


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.