United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
SUZANNE MITCHELL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Lynn West (Plaintiff) brings this action for judicial review
of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision
that she 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. 3, 7.
maintains the ALJ committed legal and factual error in
misapplying the treating physician rule and SSR 12-2p and in
evaluating her fibromyalgia and subjective complaints of
pain. Doc. 10, at 5-14. After a careful review of the record
(AR), the parties' briefs, and the relevant authority,
the court reverses 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 h[er] 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 [s]he can
no longer engage in h[er] 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. Id.
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 17-27; 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 from the
alleged onset date of May 20, 2016;
(2) had the severe impairments of obesity, other unspecified
arthropathies, and affective 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 machine folder, ticket counter, and
nut sorter; and thus (6) was not disabled ...