Source: http://mo.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170929_0001845.EMO.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-12-16 09:04:14
Document Index: 491499464

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 405', '§ 401', '§ 401', '§ 1382', '§ 1382', '§ 416', 'art, 421', 'art, 390', '§ 416', '§ 416']

KIMBERLY LYNNE BATES, Plaintiff,
This is an action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying Kimberly L. Bates's ("Bates") applications for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401, et seq.
On April 5, 2013, Bates protectively filed an application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401, et seq., alleging disability beginning January 21, 2010, due to "obesity; disorders of muscle, ligaments and fascia, and unspecified arthropathies of left arm; and asthma." (See Tr. 19.) After her application was denied at the initial administrative level, Bates requested a hearing before an administrative law judge ("ALJ"). A hearing was held on January 30, 2015. At the hearing, Bates amended her alleged onset date to March 29, 2011. The ALJ issued a written decision denying Bates's application on June 16, 2015. On July 5, 2016, the Appeals Council of the Social Security Administration denied Bates's request for review. Thus, the decision of the ALJ stands as the final decision of the Commissioner. See Sims v. Apfel, 560 U.S. 103, 107 (2000).
Bates filed this appeal on September 1, 2016. (Doc. 1.) The Commissioner filed an Answer. (Doc. 10.) Thereafter, Bates filed a Brief in Support of her Complaint (Doc. 12), the Commissioner filed a Brief in Support of the Answer (Doc. 19), and Bates filed a Reply Brief (Doc. 20).
The Court adopts Bates's Statement of Facts (Doc. 12-1) as supplemented by the Commissioner's Response to Bates's Statement of Facts (Doc. 19-1), and the Commissioner's Statement of Additional Facts (Doc. 19-2). The Court's review of the record shows that the adopted facts are accurate and complete. Specific facts will be discussed as part of the analysis.
The Social Security Act defines as disabled a person who is "unable 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 twelve months." 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A); see also Brantley v. Colvin, 2013 WL 4007441, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 2, 2013). The impairment must be "of such severity that [the claimant] is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering her 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 she lives, or whether a specific job vacancy exists for her, or whether she would be hired if she applied for work." 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(B).
Under the Social Security Act, the Commissioner has established a five-step process for determining whether a person is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a), 404.1520(a). "If a claimant fails to meet the criteria at any step in the evaluation of disability, the process ends and the claimant is determined to be not disabled." Goffv. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 790 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Eichelberger v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 584, 590-91 (8th Cir. 2004)). First, the claimant must not be engaged in "substantial gainful activity." 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a), 404.1520(a). Second, the claimant must have a "severe impairment, " defined as "any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [claimant's] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities." 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(c), 404.1520(c). "The sequential evaluation process may be terminated at step two only when the claimant's impairment or combination of impairments would have no more than a minimal impact on [his or] her ability to work." Page v. Astrue, 484 F.3d 1040, 1043 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting Caviness v. Massanari, 250 F.3d 603, 605 (8th Cir. 2001).