Source: http://co.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180511_0000613.DCO.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 04:11:22+00:00

Document:
Robert E. Blackburn United States District Judge.
The matter before me is plaintiff's Complaint [#1],  filed April 19, 2017, seeking review of the Deputy Commissioner's decision denying plaintiff's claims for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401, et seq. I have jurisdiction to review the Deputy Commissioner's final decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The matter has been fully briefed, obviating the need for oral argument. I reverse and remand.
Plaintiff alleges she is disabled as a result of lumbar and cervical osteoarthritis, depression, anxiety, substance abuse disorder, and obesity. After her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits were denied, plaintiff requested a hearing before an administrative law judge. This hearing was held on June 24, 2015. At the time of the hearing, plaintiff was 48 years old. She has a high school education and past relevant work experience as a telephone operator, accounting clerk, manager of a bowling alley, and certified nursing assistant. She has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since September 12, 2013, her amended alleged date of onset.
The ALJ found plaintiff was not disabled and therefore not entitled to disability insurance benefits or supplemental security income benefits. Although the medical evidence established plaintiff suffered from multiple severe impairments, the judge concluded the severity of those impairments did not meet or equal any impairment listed in the social security regulations. Other impairments were found to be non-severe. The ALJ found plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to perform a reduced range of light work with postural and non-exertional limitations. Although this finding precluded plaintiff's past relevant work, the judge determined there were other jobs existing in sufficient numbers in the national and local economies she could perform. He therefore found plaintiff not disabled at step five of the sequential evaluation. Plaintiff appealed this decision to the Appeals Council. The Council affirmed. Plaintiff then filed this action in federal court.
A person is disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act only if her physical and/or mental impairments preclude her from performing both her previous work and any other “substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2). “When a claimant has one or more severe impairments the Social Security [Act] requires the [Deputy Commissioner] to consider the combined effects of the impairments in making a disability determination.” Campbell v. Bowen, 822 F.2d 1518, 1521 (10th Cir. 1987) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(C)). However, the mere existence of a severe impairment or combination of impairments does not require a finding that an individual is disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. To be disabling, the claimant's condition must be so functionally limiting as to preclude any substantial gainful activity for at least twelve consecutive months. See Kelley v. Chater, 62 F.3d 335, 338 (10th Cir. 1995).
20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v). See also Williams v. Bowen 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir. 1988). The claimant has the initial burden of establishing a disability in the first four steps of this analysis. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5, 107 S.Ct. 2287, 2294 n.5, 96 L.Ed.2d 119 (1987). The burden then shifts to the Deputy Commissioner to show that the claimant is capable of performing work in the national economy. Id. 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. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 933 F.2d 799, 801 (10th Cir. 1991).

References: § 401
 § 405
 § 423
 v. 
 § 423
 v. 
 § 404
 v. 
 v. 
 v.