IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CLAUDIA A. ALLEN, *

 * 

Plaintiff, *

*

vs. * CIVIL ACTION 09-00496-B

*

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, *

Commissioner of *

Social Security, *

*

Defendant. *

ORDER

Plaintiff Claudia A. Allen (“Plaintiff”) brings this action

seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of

Social Security denying her claim for period of disability,

disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income

under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§

401 et seq., and 1381 et seq. On April 7, 2010, the parties

consented to have the undersigned conduct any and all proceedings

in this case, and waived oral argument. (Docs. 18, 19). Upon

careful consideration of the administrative record and memoranda of

the parties, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. 

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff protectively filed applications for disability

income benefits and supplemental security income benefits on May 8,

2006. Plaintiff alleges that she has been disabled since April 28,

2006, due to carpal tunnel syndrome and arthritis. (Tr. 110-117,

127). Plaintiff’s applications were denied initially and she

Case 1:09-cv-00496-B Document 22 Filed 04/21/10 Page 1 of 17
2

timely filed a Request for Hearing. (Tr. 89-97, 100). On November

1, 2007, Administrative Law Judge Stuart A. Wein (“ALJ Wein”) held

an administrative hearing, which was attended by Plaintiff and her

representative. (Tr. 44-66). ALJ Wein held a second

administrative hearing on May 28, 2008, which was attended by

Plaintiff, her representative, and a vocational expert (hereinafter

“VE”). (Tr. 67-88). On July 25, 2008, ALJ Wein issued an

unfavorable decision wherein he determined that Plaintiff is not

disabled. (Tr. 11-22). Plaintiff’s request for review was denied

by the Appeals Council (“AC”) on July 7, 2009. (Tr. 1-5). As a

result, the ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the

Commissioner in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.981. Id. The

parties agree that this case is now ripe for judicial review and is

properly before this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and

1383(c)(3).

II. Issues on Appeal

A. Whether the ALJ erred in finding that Plaintiff can

perform sedentary work.

B. Whether the ALJ erred in failing to perform a function by

function analysis of Plaintiff’s limitations in assessing

her residual functional capacity (hereinafter “RFC”).

 

III. Background

Plaintiff was born on June 16, 1961 and was 46 years old at

the time of the May 28, 2008 administrative hearing. (Tr. 50, 67,

110, 115). Plaintiff testified that she last worked in April 2006

for the Red Cross, at the Mobile Works employment office.

Case 1:09-cv-00496-B Document 22 Filed 04/21/10 Page 2 of 17
1

According to Plaintiff, when the arm brace worn out, she

began using her knee brace for her arm. (Tr. 57).

3

According to Plaintiff, she left that position because the funding

ran out. Plaintiff testified that in the Red Cross position, she

spent half of her time at her desk, and half of her time on her

feet, and that while working at the job, she had began to drop

things, and to experience a lot of pain. (Tr. 51-52). Plaintiff

also testified that prior to the Red Cross job, she had done mostly

secretarial type work, which involved the use of a computer. (Tr.

51-52). 

Plaintiff further testified that she suffers from carpal

tunnel and arthritis, and that as a result, she drops things. She

also testified that she experiences pain which she described as

like needles sticking in her. Plaintiff testified that Tylenol

Arthritis Pain and an arthritis cream helps with the pain, and that

she also uses an arm brace1

. (Tr. 55-57). Plaintiff also testified

that she has experienced problems with her knees, ankles and the

bottom of her feet since being hit by a car in 2000. (Tr. 62).

Plaintiff further testified that she has problems with migraine

headaches and vertigo. (Tr. 63-64, 74-75) According to Plaintiff,

her daily activities consist of getting her daughters ready for

school, watching television and cooking. Plaintiff also washes

dishes and does the laundry with assistance from her daughters.

(Tr. 59). 

Case 1:09-cv-00496-B Document 22 Filed 04/21/10 Page 3 of 17
2

This Court’s review of the Commissioner’s application of

legal principles is plenary. Walker v. Bowen, 826 F.2d 996, 999

(11th Cir. 1987).

4

IV. Analysis

A. Standard of Review

In reviewing claims brought under the Act, this Court’s role

is a limited one. The Court’s review is limited to determining 1)

whether the decision of the Secretary is supported by substantial

evidence and 2) whether the correct legal standards were applied.

Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990).2 A court

may not decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute

its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Sewell v. Bowen, 792

F.2d 1065, 1067 (11th Cir. 1986). The Commissioner’s findings of

fact must be affirmed if they are based upon substantial evidence.

Brown v. Sullivan, 921 F.2d 1233, 1235 (11th Cir. 1991); Bloodsworth

v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983) (holding

substantial evidence is defined as “more than a scintilla but less

than a preponderance” and consists of “such relevant evidence as a

reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a

conclusion[]”). In determining whether substantial evidence

exists, a court must view the record as a whole, taking into

account evidence favorable, as well as unfavorable, to the

Commissioner’s decision. Chester v. Bowen, 792 F. 2d 129, 131 (11th

Case 1:09-cv-00496-B Document 22 Filed 04/21/10 Page 4 of 17
3

The claimant must first prove that he or she has not

engaged in substantial gainful activity. The second step

requires the claimant to prove that he or she has a severe

impairment or combination of impairments. If, at the third step,

the claimant proves that the impairment or combination of

impairments meets or equals a listed impairment, then the

claimant is automatically found disabled regardless of age,

education, or work experience. If the claimant cannot prevail at

the third step, he or she must proceed to the fourth step where

the claimant must prove an inability to perform their past

relevant work. Jones v. Bowen, 810 F.2d 1001, 1005 (11th Cir.

1986). In evaluating whether the claimant has met this burden,

the examiner must consider the following four factors: (1)

objective medical facts and clinical findings; (2) diagnoses of

examining physicians; (3) evidence of pain; (4) the claimant’s

age, education and work history. Id. at 1005. Once a claimant

meets this burden, it becomes the Commissioner’s burden to prove

at the fifth step that the claimant is capable of engaging in

another kind of substantial gainful employment which exists in

5

Cir. 1986); Short v. Apfel, 1999 U.S. DIST. LEXIS 10163 (S.D. Ala.

June 14, 1999).

B. Discussion

An individual who applies for Social Security disability

benefits must prove her disability. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512,

416.912. Disability is defined as the “inability to do 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 twelve months.” 42 U.S.C. §§

423(d)(1)(A), 404.1505(a), 416.905(a). The Social Security

regulations provide a five-step sequential evaluation process for

determining if a claimant has proven her disability. 20 C.F.R. §§

404.1520, 416.920.3

 

Case 1:09-cv-00496-B Document 22 Filed 04/21/10 Page 5 of 17
significant numbers in the national economy, given the claimant’s

residual functional capacity, age, education, and work history. 

Sryock v. Heckler, 764 F.2d 834 (11th Cir. 1985). If the

Commissioner can demonstrate that there are such jobs the

claimant can perform, the claimant must prove inability to

perform those jobs in order to be found disabled. Jones v.

Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224, 1228 (11th Cir. 1999). See also Hale v.

Bowen, 831 F.2d 1007, 1011 (11th Cir. 1987) (citing Francis v.

Heckler, 749 F.2d 1562, 1564 (11th Cir. 1985)). 

6

The ALJ determined that Plaintiff met the insured status

requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2009,

and that she has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since

her alleged onset date. The ALJ concluded that while Plaintiff has

the severe impairment of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, it does

not meet or medically equal the criteria for any of the impairments

listed in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, Regulations No. 4.

(Tr. 16-17). The ALJ found that Plaintiff has the residual

functional capacity (hereinafter “RFC”) for sedentary work;

however, she is limited to occasional reaching and occasional, as

opposed to repetitive, fine manipulation. (Tr. 17). The ALJ also

concluded that because Plaintiff’s past relevant work as a

secretary required repetitive fine manipulation, Plaintiff is

unable to perform her past relevant work. (Tr. 20). The ALJ

concluded that considering Plaintiff’s age, education, work

experience and RFC, there are jobs that exist in significant

numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform. Id.

The relevant evidence of record reflects that Plaintiff began

receiving treatment for pain in her left hand at Victory Health

Case 1:09-cv-00496-B Document 22 Filed 04/21/10 Page 6 of 17
4

Tinel's sign is an test used to detect an irritated nerve. 

See, www.medicinenet.com. (Last visited February 22, 2010). 

5

Triscaphe arthritis, is a degenerative arthritis in which

the degenerative change is limited to between the trapezium,

trapezoid, and distal scaphoid. See, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Last

visited March 23, 2010. 

6

Thumb spica wrist braces usually offer additional

immobilization for the thumb area. These braces are indicated for

soft tissue injuries, gamekeeper injuries, collateral ligament

7

Center on December 20, 2005. (Tr. 160). At that time, Plaintiff

reported left hand pain that shot up her arm and hand. She also

reported dropping a glass because of weakness in her hand. She was

referred to an orthopedist. (Tr. 160-162). 

Plaintiff was treated by B. H. Freeman, M.D., at the

Orthopedic Group, beginning in January 2007. On exam, Dr. Freeman

noted mildly positive Tinel’s4

 at the carpal tunnel, and that xrays showed probably some fairly specific and early triscaphe

arthritis. He ordered nerve conduction studies (hereinafter

“NCS”). Dr. Freeman reported that the NCS revealed mild left

carpal tunnel syndrome. (Tr. 169).

Plaintiff returned to Dr. Freeman on January 18, 2006. Dr.

Freeman noted mild carpal tunnel on the left, and also

carpometacarpal joint arthritis. He recommended injection in the

carpal tunnel. On February 6, 2006, Dr. Freemen reported that

injection in the carpal tunnel did not help at all, and opined that

Plaintiff was suffering from triscaphy arthritis5. He prescribed

a thumb spica cast6

, and prescription-strength Advil or Aleve.

Case 1:09-cv-00496-B Document 22 Filed 04/21/10 Page 7 of 17
support and avulsion fractures of the thumb. See,

www.kneeshop.com. Last visited March 23, 2010. 

8

(Tr. 169). During Plaintiff’s March 20, 2006 visit, Dr. Freeman

noted that Plaintiff was still having problems, and that he could

not do anything for her except offer anti-inflammatories and

continued splinting. (Tr. 169). Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Freeman

again on September 18, 2006. Dr. Freeman noted that Plaintiff had

a mildly positive carpal tunnel, crepitus in her radioulnar joint,

and prominent distal ulna with some evidence of impingement on her

x-ray. He further noted some crepitus in the radioulnar joint.

(Tr. 182). 

Medical consultant Petra Chnapekova-Simmons completed a

Physical Residual Functional Capacity Assessment on behalf of the

Agency on June 9, 2006. She opined that Plaintiff is limited to

lifting/carrying up to 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds

frequently, standing/walking/sitting about six hours in an eighthour workday, and pushing and pulling hand or foot controls without

limit. She further reported that Plaintiff has no postural,

manipulative, visual, communicative or environmental limitations.

(Tr. 170-177).

Plaintiff was treated at Stanton Road Clinic on August 3,

2006. She complained of pain in all joints, worse in her wrist and

thumb. On physical exam, Plaintiff had positive Tinel’s, and pain

and crepitus in her knees. She also had reduced sensation in her

Case 1:09-cv-00496-B Document 22 Filed 04/21/10 Page 8 of 17
7

Ultracet contains the opioid analgesic tramadol and

acetaminophen, and is used to treat moderate to severe pain. 

See, www.drugs.com. (Last visited February 22, 2010).

8

Elavil is a tricyclic antidepressants, used to treat

symptoms of depression. See, www.drugs.com. (Last visited

February 22, 2010). 

9

Ceftin is a cephalosporin antibiotic, used to treat many

kinds of bacterial infection. See, www.drugs.com. (Last visited

February 22, 2010). 

9

left forearm. She was diagnosed with carpal tunnel vs ulnar nerve

compression and osteoarthritis vs. rheumatoid arthritis, and was

referred to an orthopedic for a possible release procedure. (Tr.

179-180). Plaintiff was next seen at the Stanton Road Clinic on May

30, 2008. She reported weight loss,, loss of appetite, dizziness,

heart palpitations, arthralgias and stiffness. She was diagnosed

with weight loss, carpal tunnel, and multiple joint stiffness and

pain. Testing for rheumatoid factor was negative. (Tr. 201-202,

204). 

Plaintiff was seen by Donald Newman, M.D., at Northside

Clinic, on November 3, 2006. She reported pain in her joints,

particularly her wrists, knees and toes, and that her balance was

off. Her examination was described as “pretty unremarkable.” Dr.

Newman prescribed Ultracet7, Elavil8

, Meclizine, Ceftin9 and

tapering Prednisone. (Tr. 184-185). 

Andre J. Fontana, M.D., performed an orthopedic evaluation of

Plaintiff at the request of the Agency on January 29, 2008. On

physical exam, Dr. Fontana notes positive Tinel’s, dryness in her

Case 1:09-cv-00496-B Document 22 Filed 04/21/10 Page 9 of 17
10

sweat patterns, good range of motion, no swelling in her fingers

and wrists, and 5/5 grip strength in the upper extremity. (Tr.

197-198). Dr. Fontana reported that x-rays of Plaintiff’s wrists

AP/lateral showed minimal if any degenerative changes, and x-rays

of her knees showed minimal if any degenerative changes. He noted

possible mild spurring over the patella in the lateral view of her

left and right knee. He diagnosed Plaintiff with left and right

wrist carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Fontana opined that Plaintiff

would have difficulty with constant, repetitive activities, and

that she was restricted from kneeling, crawling, frequent

squatting, climbing and walking at unprotected heights. (Tr. 198).

Dr. Fontana completed a Physical Capacities Evaluation on the

same day. He opined that Plaintiff could sit/stand/walk two hours

at a time, and eight hours total in an eight-hour workday, and

could lift/carry up to 20 pounds continuously, 25 pounds frequently

and 50 pounds occasionally. Dr. Fontana further opined that

Plaintiff could do simple grasping with her left and right hands,

but she could not engage in repetitive pushing or pulling, or

repetitive fine manipulation. He also opined that Plaintiff can

occasionally bend, squat, and reach, but cannot crawl or climb. He

further opined that Plaintiff is moderately limited in her ability

to work at unprotected heights and mildly limited in her ability to

work around moving machinery or while driving automotive equipment.

(Tr. 199). 

Case 1:09-cv-00496-B Document 22 Filed 04/21/10 Page 10 of 17
11

Dr. Fontana provided an addendum to this evaluation, in which

he noted that an x-ray of Plaintiff’s right hand showed mild to

moderate arthritis at the metacarpophalangeal joint of the thumb

and moderate to severe arthritis at the interphalangeal joint. He

noted no significant arthritic changes in her wrist or other

fingers other than some mild degenerative changes in the distal

interphalangeal joints. He noted similar changes on the right and

left hand, as seen on a lateral view of the fingers and thumb area.

He further reported that the x-ray of Plaintiff’s left hand,

lateral view, shows an accentuated degenerative change in the DIP

joint of the little finger, the ring finger, the long finger and

the index finger. He noted no significant degenerative changes in

the interphalangeal joint of the thumb or the metacarpophalangeal

of the thumb. Dr. Fontana noted that the AP view of the hand shows

mild to moderate degenerative changes in the metacarpophalangeal

joint of the thumb and interphalangeal joint of the thumb. (Tr.

200).

1. Whether the ALJ erred in finding that Plaintiff can

perform sedentary work, even though Dr. Fontana found she

could not perform bilateral repetitive fine manipulation.

Plaintiff argues that her inability to perform repetitive fine

manipulation significantly limits her ability to handle and work

with small objects with both hands, which in turn significantly

erodes the sedentary work base such that Plaintiff is unable to

perform any work at the sedentary level. (Doc. 15). 

Case 1:09-cv-00496-B Document 22 Filed 04/21/10 Page 11 of 17
12

Defendant counters that Dr. Fontana opined that Plaintiff

would have difficulty with constant repetitive activities, and as

a result, restricted her from performing repetitive fine

manipulation. According to Defendant, that limitation does not

preclude Plaintiff from being able to perform fine manipulation on

an occasional basis. (Doc. 16 at 5). 

In determining Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity, the

ALJ stated as follows:

After careful consideration of the entire record, the

undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual

functional capacity to perform sedentary work as defined

in 20 CFR 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a) involving only

occasional reaching and occasional fine manipulation but

no repetitive fine manipulation.......................

As for the opinion evidence, more weight to given to Dr.

Fontana who reported only mild to moderate objective

findings. His only impression was left and right wrist

carpal tunnel syndrome. She could do occasional reaching

consistent with the above cited lifting/carrying

restrictions. Dr. Fontana felt that the claimant would

not be able to do perform repetitive fine manipulation;

however, he did not rule out occasional fine

manipulation. Dr. Fontana’s opinions are consistent with

those of Dr. Newman whose exam was unremarkable.

Furthermore, Dr. Freeman found only mildly positive

carpal tunnel and crepitus in the radioulnar joint. An

x-ray showed some evidence of impingement of the distal

ulna.

The medical record as a whole just does not support a

conclusion that the claimant is not capable of doing any

fine manipulation. The claimant testified that she does

the dishes and laundry with some help, does all the

cooking, gets her daughters ready for school and goes on

some field trips and meetings. The claimant alleges

numerous ailments and disabilities; however, the totality

of the medical record does not support a conclusion that

the claimant would be precluded from all work activity.

Case 1:09-cv-00496-B Document 22 Filed 04/21/10 Page 12 of 17
13

(Tr. 17, 20). 

 Social Security Ruling 96-9p: Titles II and XVI: Determining

Capability to Do Other Work – Implications of a Residual Functional

Capacity for Less Than a Full Range of Sedentary Work (“SSR 96-9p")

sets forth the nonexertional limitations and restrictions that

impede an individual’s ability to perform a full range of sedentary

work. Included in that list is a significant manipulative

limitation on an individual’s ability to handle and work with small

objects with both hands. SSR 96-9p further states that an

adjudicator may use a VE when the extent of erosion of the

unskilled sedentary occupational base is unclear.

In this case, the ALJ acknowledged that Plaintiff is limited

with respect to fine manipulation. While Plaintiff contends that

she is unable to engage in any fine manipulation, a careful review

of Dr. Fontana’s report reflects that the notation regarding no

fine manipulation is listed under the heading of repetitive

actions, and in his written evaluation, Dr. Fontana expressly noted

that “the patient would have difficulty with constant, repetitive

activities.” (Tr. 198). Thus, the ALJ did not err in concluding

that while Plaintiff cannot engage in repetitive fine manipulation,

she can engage in occasional fine manipulation. This is

particularly true given Plaintiff’s testimony that she is able to

get her daughters ready for school, is able to cook, and is able to

wash dishes and do laundry with assistance from her daughters. 

Case 1:09-cv-00496-B Document 22 Filed 04/21/10 Page 13 of 17
14

Having determined that Plaintiff is restricted from repetitive

fine manipulation, but can engage in occasional fine manipulation

and reaching, the ALJ consulted a VE to determine if there are

sedentary jobs that Plaintiff can perform in the national economy

with these limitations. The VE testified that a ban on fine

manipulation would preclude Plaintiff from all work; whereas, a

restriction on repetitive fine manipulation, which allowed for

occasional fine manipulation, would not preclude all jobs. The VE

then identified jobs that Plaintiff could perform with the

occasional reaching and manipulation restrictions. (Tr. 78-80).

Accordingly, the ALJ properly relied on the VE’s testimony to

conclude that Plaintiff is not disabled, and his decision is

supported by substantial evidence. See Orestano v. Comm. of Soc.

Sec. Admin, 252 Fed. Appx. 962, 963, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 25677, at

*2-3 (11th Cir. Oct. 31, 2007) (holding that where the ALJ found the

claimant capable of performing a significant, but not full, range

of sedentary work, and used a VE to determine whether there were a

significant number of jobs in the national economy that Plaintiff

could perform, he applied the correct legal standards and did not

err). 

2. Whether the ALJ erred in failing to perform a function by

function analysis of Plaintiff’s limitations in assessing

her RFC.

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in failing to make a

specific finding regarding Plaintiff’s ability to sit, stand, walk,

Case 1:09-cv-00496-B Document 22 Filed 04/21/10 Page 14 of 17
15

push or pull, and as a result, did not properly consider all of her

work-related functions as required by 20 CFR § 404.1545(b) and

Social Security Ruling 96-8p: Titles II and XVI: Assessing Residual

Functional Capacity in Initial Claims. (“SSR 96-8p”).

Defendant counters that the ALJ performed the function by

function analysis required by SSR 96-8p by considering and noting

all the relevant evidence bearing on Plaintiff’s ability to do

work-related activities. The Commissioner further contends that

the ALJ’s residual functional capacity assessment to perform

sedentary work implies the degree to which Plaintiff is able to

sit, stand, walk, lift and carry. 

"The RFC assessment is a function-by-function assessment based

upon all of the relevant evidence of an individual's ability to do

work-related activities." SSR 96-8p. In Freeman v. Barnhart, 220

Fed. Appx. 957, 959-60 (11th Cir. 2007)(unpublished), the Eleventh

Circuit held that an ALJ's failure to "more specific[ally] and

explicit[ly]" set forth his findings with respect to a claimant's

"functional limitations and work-related abilities on a

function-by-function basis" is excusable where it is apparent the

ALJ did "consider all of the evidence."; See also Chavez v. Astrue,

276 Fed. Appx. 627, 627-28 (9th Cir. 2008) ("Chavez claims that the

ALJ committed legal error by determining his mental residual

functional capacity without performing a function-by-function

assessment as required by Social Security Ruling 96-8p, 1996 SSR

Case 1:09-cv-00496-B Document 22 Filed 04/21/10 Page 15 of 17
16

LEXIS 5. This claim fails because the ALJ considered and noted

'all of the relevant evidence' bearing on Chavez's 'ability to do

work-related activities,' as required by the function-by-function

analysis.") (internal citations omitted).

In this case, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff has the severe

impairment of carpal tunnel syndrome. He then set forth

Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity as follows:

After careful consideration of the entire record, the

undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual

functional capacity to perform sedentary work as defined

in 20 CRF 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a) involving only

occasional reaching and occasional fine manipulation but

no repetitive fine manipulation. 

(Tr. 17). The ALJ summarized the evidence supporting such finding,

including Dr. Fontanta’s assessment, and Plaintiff’s testimony

regarding how long she is able to sit, stand, lift and carry, and

her testimony that she does dishes and laundry with some help, does

all the cooking and gets her daughters ready for school. (Tr. 17-

18, 20). 

Based upon a review of the record, the undersigned finds that

substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff

retains the RFC for sedentary work, with occasional reaching and

occasional fine manipulation, but no repetitive fine manipulation.

In reaching the RFC conclusion, the ALJ properly and clearly

considered the record evidence regarding Plaintiff’s functional

capabilities, including Plaintiff’s own assertions and the medical

Case 1:09-cv-00496-B Document 22 Filed 04/21/10 Page 16 of 17
records, and so complied with SSR 96-8p. The fact that the ALJ did

not expressly address each functional ability, such as the ability

to sit, stand, walk, push or pull, or other functional

capabilities is of no moment where the record clearly demonstrates

that the ALJ considered all of the evidence, and further

establishes that Plaintiff has the RFC set forth by the ALJ. 

V. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth, and upon careful consideration of

the administrative record and the memoranda of the parties, it is

ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security,

denying Plaintiff’s claim for disability insurance benefits and

supplemental security income, be AFFIRMED.

DONE this 21st day of April, 2010.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00496-B Document 22 Filed 04/21/10 Page 17 of 17