Source: http://co.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180329_0000425.DCO.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 05:01:24+00:00

Document:
This matter comes before the Court on the Complaint [Docket No. 1] filed by plaintiff Nori S. Abosedra on June 8, 2016. Plaintiff seeks review of the final decision of defendant Nancy A. Berryhill (the “Commissioner”) denying his claim for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-33 and 1381-83c. The Court has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's final decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(b), except as stated otherwise as follows. The claimant is able to lift/carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. During an 8-hour workday, the claimant is able to stand and/or walk 30 minutes at a time for a total of 4 hours, and sit 30 minutes at a time for a total of 6 hours. The claimant is able to frequently balance and crouch; and occasionally kneel, stoop, crawl, and climb ramps and stairs. He is unable to push, pull, or otherwise operate foot controls with either lower extremity. He is unable to climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. The claimant should avoid concentrated exposure to extreme cold. He should avoid prolonged exposure to concentrated levels of pulmonary irritants such as dust, gases, and chemicals. He should avoid unprotected heights, dangerous machinery and excessive vibration.
Id. at 15. Based on this RFC and in reliance on the testimony of a vocational expert (“VE”), the ALJ concluded that there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that plaintiff can perform. Id. at 27-28. On April 14, 2016, the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review of the ALJ's decision. Id. at 1-3. Thus, the ALJ's decision is the final decision of the Commissioner.
[a]n individual shall be determined to be under a disability only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy, regardless of whether such work exists in the immediate area in which he lives, or whether a specific job vacancy exists for him, or whether he would be hired if he applied for work.
(1) whether the claimant is currently working; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) whether the claimant's impairment meets an impairment listed in appendix 1 of the relevant regulation; (4) whether the impairment precludes the claimant from doing his past relevant work; and (5) whether the impairment precludes the claimant from doing any work. Trimiar v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1326, 1329 (10th Cir. 1992) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b)-(f)). A finding that the claimant is disabled or not disabled at any point in the five-step review is conclusive and terminates the analysis. Casias v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 933 F.2d 799, 801 (10th Cir. 1991).
The claimant has the initial burden of establishing a case of disability. However, “[i]f the claimant is not considered disabled at step three, but has satisfied her burden of establishing a prima facie case of disability under steps one, two, and four, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show the claimant has the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform other work in the national economy in view of her age, education, and work experience.” See Fischer-Ross v. Barnhart, 431 F.3d 729, 731 (10th Cir. 2005); see also Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987). While the claimant has the initial burden of proving a disability, “the ALJ has a basic duty of inquiry, to inform himself about facts relevant to his decision and to learn the claimant's own version of those facts.” Hill v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 972, 974 (10th Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by (1) failing to appropriately weigh the opinions of plaintiff's treating physicians; (2) failing to discuss all of plaintiff's diagnoses; (3) failing to adequately account for plaintiff's pain; and (4) disregarding portions of the vocational expert's opinion. See Docket No. 13 at 2.

References: § 405
 v. 
 § 404
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.