Source: http://ok.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180314_0000263.WOK.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-07-21 18:53:16
Document Index: 219102801

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 405', '§ 401', '§ 404', '§ 404', 'art 404', '§ 404']

MICHAEL COOPER, Plaintiff,
Plaintiff Michael Cooper brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denying Plaintiff's applications for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-434. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge. Doc. Nos. 14, 15. Upon review of the administrative record (Doc. No. 10, hereinafter “R. ”) and the arguments and authorities submitted by the parties, the Court reverses the Commissioner's decision and remands the matter for further proceedings.[1]
Plaintiff protectively filed his application for DIB on November 30, 2011, alleging a disability onset date of June 24, 2011. R. 9, 188-95, 229-30. Following denial of Plaintiff's application initially and on reconsideration, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) held a hearing. R. 34-76, 83-87, 89-91. The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on September 11, 2015. R. 9-19. The SSA Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review, making the ALJ's unfavorable decision the final decision of the Commissioner. R. 1-3; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.981. This action for judicial review followed.
As relevant here, the Commissioner uses a five-step sequential evaluation process to determine eligibility for disability benefits. Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048, 1052 (10th Cir. 2009); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, .1520(a)(4). At step one, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since June 24, 2011, the alleged onset date. R. 11. At step two, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had the severe impairments of: major depressive disorder, panic disorder, asthma, bronchitis, chronic sinusitis, allergies, and obesity. R. 11. At step three, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff's impairments did not meet or equal any of the presumptively disabling impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (the “Listings”). R. 11-12.
The ALJ next assessed Plaintiff's residual functional capacity (“RFC”) based on all of his impairments. R. 12-17. The ALJ found that Plaintiff had the RFC to perform medium work subject to the additional limitations that Plaintiff:
should avoid even moderate exposure to dust, fumes, gases, and pulmonary irritants; [can] perform simple and routine tasks consistent with unskilled work involving no interaction with the general public and no more than occasional interaction with coworkers. [Plaintiff] can learn tasks through verbal instruction and demonstration.
R. 12; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(c) (defining “medium work”). At step four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was unable to perform any past relevant work and that transferability of job skills was not a material issue. R. 17-18.
At step five, the ALJ considered whether there are jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff-in view of his age, education, work experience, and RFC-could perform. Taking into consideration the hearing testimony of a vocational expert regarding the degree of erosion to the unskilled medium occupational base caused by Plaintiff's additional limitations, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff could perform occupations such as production helper, rack loader, conveyor tender, hand bander, small-products assembler, and silver wrapper, all of which offer jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. R. 18-19. On this basis, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from June 24, 2011, through the date of the decision. R. 19.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In this action, Plaintiff presents two claims of error: (1) the ALJ erred in determining Plaintiff&#39;s RFC, including by (a) failing to properly consider the limitations caused by Plaintiff&#39;s impairment of chronic migraine headaches, (b) failing to properly consider the limitations caused by Plaintiff&#39;s impairment of agoraphobia, and (c) failing to properly consider medical opinions of Plaintiff&#39;s treating physicians; and (2) the ALJ erred at step three by improperly applying the &ldquo;special technique&rdquo; in evaluating whether Plaintiff&#39;s mental impairments met one or more Listings. See Pl.'s Br. (Doc. No. 18) at ...