Source: http://ia.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190924_0000635.NIA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-10-18 09:19:49
Document Index: 690898761

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 401', '§ 416', '§ 416', '§ 416', '§ 416', 'art, 353', 'art, 390', 'art, 377']

FindACase™ | Rollie v. Saul
Rollie v. Saul
LYNN E. ROLLIE, Plaintiff,
Claimant Lynn E. Rollie (“claimant”) seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”) denying her application for disability and disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-34 (the “Act”). Claimant contends that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in determining that claimant was not disabled and that the ALJ was not appointed in a constitutional manner. For the following reasons, the Court affirms the Commissioner’s decision.
The Court adopts the facts as set forth in the parties’ Joint Statement of Facts and therefore will only summarize the pertinent facts here. (Doc. 11). At the time of the hearing before the ALJ, claimant was forty-seven years old. (AR 25).[1] Claimant has a high school education, completed one year of college, and is able to communicate in English. (AR 23, 25).
On September 17, 2015, claimant filed an application for disability and disability insurance benefits, alleging an onset date of July 23, 2015. (AR 15). The Social Security Administration denied claimant’s applications initially and on reconsideration. (Id.). Claimant filed a written request for a hearing. (Id.). On December 6, 2017, ALJ Robert A. Kelley held a hearing on claimant’s application. (Id.). On March 9, 2018, the ALJ denied claimant’s application for benefits. (AR 15-26). On October 4, 2018, the Appeals Council denied claimant’s request for review, making the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner. (AR 1-6).
On December 5, 2018, claimant filed her complaint in this Court. (Doc. 1). On July 3, 2019, claimant filed her brief. (Doc. 12). On July 26, 2019, the Commissioner filed his brief. (Doc. 13). On August 12, 2019, claimant filed a reply brief. (Doc. 14). On August 13, 2019, the Court deemed this case fully submitted and ready for decision and referred this case to a United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 15). On September 10, 2019, the Court unreferred the case.
To determine whether a claimant has a disability within the meaning of the Act, the Commissioner follows the five-step sequential evaluation process outlined in the regulations. Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 707-08 (8th Cir. 2007). First, the Commissioner will consider a claimant’s work activity. If the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity, then the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(i). “Substantial” work activity involves physical or mental activities. “Gainful” activity is work done for pay or profit, even if the claimant did not ultimately receive pay or profit.
Second, if the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, then the Commissioner looks to the severity of the claimant’s physical and mental impairments. Id. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). If the impairments are not severe, then the claimant is not disabled. An impairment is not severe if it does “not significantly limit [a] claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” Kirby, 500 F.3d at 707.
Fourth, if the claimant’s impairment is severe, but it does not meet or equal one of the presumptively disabling impairments, then the Commissioner will assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) and the demands of his past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant can still do his past relevant work, then he is considered not disabled. Id. Past relevant work is any work the claimant performed within the fifteen years before his application that was substantial gainful activity and lasted long enough for the claimant to learn how to do it. Id., at § 416.960(b). “RFC is a medical question defined wholly in terms of the claimant’s physical ability to perform exertional tasks or, in other words, what the claimant can still do despite [ ] her physical or mental limitations.” Lewis v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 642, 646 (8th Cir. 2003) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The RFC is based on all relevant medical and other evidence. The claimant is responsible for providing the evidence the Commissioner will use to determine the RFC. Eichelberger v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 584, 591 (8th Cir. 2004). If a claimant retains enough RFC to perform past relevant work, then the claimant is not disabled.
Fifth, if the claimant’s RFC as determined in Step Four will not allow the claimant to perform past relevant work, then the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show there is other work the claimant can do, given the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience. The Commissioner must show not only that the claimant’s RFC will allow him to make the adjustment to other work, but also that other work exists in significant numbers in the national economy. Eichelberger, 390 F.3d at 591. If the claimant can make the adjustment, then the Commissioner will find the claimant not disabled. At Step Five, the Commissioner has the responsibility of developing the claimant’s medical history before making a determination about the existence of a disability. The burden of persuasion to prove disability remains on the claimant. Stormo v. Barnhart, 377 F.3d 801, 806 (8th Cir. 2004).
At Step One, the ALJ found that claimant had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since July 23, 2015. (AR 18).
At Step Two, the ALJ found that claimant had the severe impairments of “fibromyalgia; history of cervical fusion surgery; disorder of muscle, ligament and fascia; total right knee replacement; [and] depression.” (Id.). Although the ALJ noted claimant had other impairments, including carpal tunnel syndrome and rheumatoid arthritis, the ALJ found that they did not have more than a minimum effect on claimant’s ability to perform basic work functions and thus did not find them severe. (Id.).
At Step Three, the ALJ found that claimant did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled a presumptively disabling impairment listed in the relevant regulations. (AR 18-19).
As Step Four, the ALJ found claimant had:
the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) except can stand/walk for up to 6 hours in an 8-hour workday; can sit for up to 6 hours in an 8-hour workday; never crawl or climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds; only occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch or climb ramps/stairs; only occasionally overhead reaching with the left upper extremity; limited to unskilled work in that the individual is able to understand, remember and carry out only routine, repetitive tasks; and, able to maintain focus, attention and concentration for two hours at a time, that is, during the standard two-hour work intervals between normal breaks throughout the workday.
(AR 19). Also at Step Four, the ALJ found that claimant could not perform any past relevant work. (AR 25).
At Step Five, the ALJ found that given claimant’s age, education, work experience, and RFC, there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the ...