United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
SUZANNE MITCHELL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Paul Dickson (Plaintiff) brings this action for judicial
review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final
decision that he was not “disabled” under the
Social Security Act. See 42 U.S.C. §§
405(g), 423(d)(1)(A). The parties have consented to the
undersigned Magistrate Judge for proceedings consistent with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). Docs. 4, 14.
maintains he cannot perform the jobs identified at step five
of the sequential evaluation process. After a careful review
of the record (AR), the parties' briefs, and the relevant
authority, the court affirms the Commissioner's decision.
See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
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 his 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 he can no
longer engage in his 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.
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 817-28; see 20
C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4); see also Wall v.
Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048, 1052 (10th Cir. 2009) (describing
the five-step process). The ALJ found Plaintiff:
(1) had not engaged in substantial gainful activity from the
alleged onset date through the last-insured date;
(2) had the severe impairments of obesity, diabetes mellitus,
degenerative disc disease, hypothyroidism, asthma,
depression, and adjustment disorder;
(3) had no impairment or combination of impairments that met
or medically equaled the severity of a listed impairment;
(4) had the residual functional capacity (RFC) for sedentary
work with additional restrictions;
(5) was unable to perform any past relevant work, but could
perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the
national economy such as order clerk, document preparer, and
touch-up screener; and thus
(6) was not disabled between the alleged onset date and the