United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
T. ERWIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for
judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of
the Social Security Administration denying Plaintiff's
applications for benefits under the Social Security Act. The
Commissioner has answered and filed a transcript of the
administrative record (hereinafter TR.). The parties have
consented to jurisdiction over this matter by a United States
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
parties have briefed their positions, and the matter is now
at issue. Based on the Court's review of the record and
the issues presented, the Court AFFIRMS the
and on reconsideration, the Social Security Administration
denied Plaintiff's applications for benefits. Following
two administrative hearings, an Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) issued an unfavorable decision. (TR. 12-26). The
Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review.
(TR. 1-3). Thus, the decision of the ALJ became the final
decision of the Commissioner.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
followed the five-step sequential evaluation process required
by agency regulations. See Fischer-Ross v. Barnhart,
431 F.3d 729, 731 (10th Cir. 2005); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520
416.920. At step one, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had
not engaged in substantial gainful activity since January 28,
2016, her alleged onset date. (TR. 14). At step two, the ALJ
determined that Ms. Burton had the following severe
impairments: seizure disorder; headaches; and depression.
(TR. 14). At step three, the ALJ found that Plaintiff's
impairments did not meet or medically equal any of the
presumptively disabling impairments listed at 20 C.F.R. Part
404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (TR. 18).
four, the ALJ concluded that Ms. Burton could not perform her
past relevant work, but retained the residual functional
capacity (RFC) to:
[P]erform a restricted range of light work as defined in 20
CFR 404.1567(b) and 20 CFR 416.967(b) and with nonexertional
limitations. The claimant can sit for no more than 2 hours at
a time, stand for no more than 1 hour at a time, walk for no
more than 1 hour at a time; can sit no more than 6 hours in
an 8 hour workday, can stand no more than 3 hours in an 8
hour workday, can walk no more than 2 hours in an 8 hour
workday; can do frequent reaching, handling and fingering,
but no more than occasional overhead reaching, pushing,
pulling and use of foot controls; no ladders, ropes or
scaffolds[;] occasional climbing ramps or stairs, stooping,
balancing, crouching, crawling or kneeling[;] no unprotected
heights, moving mechanical parts or vehicle operation;
occasional exposure to humidity, wetness, extreme
temperatures, vibrations or respiratory irritants. The
claimant can perform simple, routine, repetitive tasks with
no strict production requirements, no public contact, and no
more than occasional contact with supervisors and co-workers.
(TR. 20-21, 24).
five, the ALJ presented the RFC limitations to a vocational
expert (VE) to determine whether there were other jobs in the
national economy that Plaintiff could perform. (TR. 40-41).
Given the limitations, the VE identified three jobs from the
Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT). (TR. 41-42). The ALJ
adopted the VE's testimony and concluded that Ms. Burton
was not disabled at step five. (TR. 26).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Court reviews the Commissioner's final decision “to
determin[e] whether the factual findings are supported by
substantial evidence in the record and whether the correct
legal standards were applied.” Wilson v.
Astrue, 602 F.3d 1136, 1140 (10th Cir. 2010). Under the
“substantial evidence” standard, a court looks to
an existing administrative record and asks whether it
contains “sufficien[t] evidence” to support the
agency's factual determinations. Biestek v.
Berryhill, 139 S.Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019).
“Substantial evidence … is more than a mere
scintilla … and means only-such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S.Ct.
at 1154 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
the court considers whether the ALJ followed the applicable
rules of law in weighing particular types of evidence in
disability cases, the court will “neither reweigh the
evidence nor substitute [its] judgment for that of the
agency.” Vigil v. Colvin, 805 F.3d 1199, 1201
(10th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
appeal, Ms. Burton alleges the ALJ: (1) failed to include
limitations related to her migraine headaches in the RFC and
(2) erred at step five. (ECF No. 14:3-13).
NO ERROR IN THE CONSIDERATION ...