United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SUZANNE MITCHELL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
McLeod (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). United States District Judge Stephen P. Friot
has referred the matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge
for proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. §§
636(b)(1)(B), 636(b)(3). Doc. 17.
maintains the ALJ improperly weighed two physicians'
opinions. After a careful review of the record (AR), the
parties' briefs, and the relevant authority, the
undersigned recommends the court affirm the
Commissioner's 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 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 Plaintiffs case applied the standard
regulatory-analysis to decide whether Plaintiff was disabled
during the relevant timeframe. AR 30-42; 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 not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the
alleged onset date;
(2) had the severe impairments of gout, Grave's disease,
degenerative disc disease, hypertension, ischemic heart
disease, cervical disc disease, thyroid gland disorder, and
neoplasma of eye;
(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 light work
with an additional restriction;
(5) was unable to perform any past relevant work, could
perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the
national economy prior to March 1, 2016, such as riveting
machine operator II, glass checker optical goods, and
assembler small products II, but could not perform any such
jobs on or after March 1, 2016; and thus (6) was ...