Source: http://ut.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180830_0000741.DUT.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-07-10 20:31:42
Document Index: 517085678

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 636', '§ 401', '§ 405', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', 'art, 399']

District Judge Ted Stewart referred this case to Chief Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).[2] Before the court is Harriet S.'s (“Plaintiff”) appeal of the Commissioner's final decision determining that Plaintiff was not entitled to Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-434. After careful consideration of the written briefs and the complete record, the court has determined that oral argument is not necessary in this case.
Plaintiff alleges disability due to various physical and mental impairments. In August 2013, Plaintiff applied for DIB, alleging disability beginning on November 1, 2012.[3] Plaintiff's application was denied initially and upon reconsideration.[4] On April 11, 2014, Plaintiff requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”).[5] After administrative hearings, [6] the ALJ issued a written decision on March 30, 2016, denying Plaintiff's claim for DIB.[7] On February 3, 2017, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review, [8] making t h e A L J 's decision the Commissioner's final decision for purposes of judicial review. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); 20 C.F.R. § 404.981. On March 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed her complaint in this case seeking review of the Commissioner's final decision.[9]
A five -step evaluation process has been established for determining whether a claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v); see also Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-51 (10th Cir. 1988) (discussing the five-step process). If a determination can be made at any one of the steps that a claimant is or is not disabled, the subsequent steps need not be analyzed. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).
In support of her claim that the ALJ's decision should be reversed, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred (1) at step two of the sequential evaluation process by failing to determine that certain of Plaintiff's alleged impairments were severe and (2) in evaluating certain medical opinions. The court will address those arguments in turn.
As noted above, step two of the sequential evaluation process determines whether the claimant has medical impairments, either individually or in combination, that are severe. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). To establish severity, the claimant must “show that his impairments would have more than a minimal effect on his ability to do basic work activities.” Williams, 844 F.2d at 751; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). While step two requires only “a de minimus showing, ” Grogan v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 1257, 1263 (10th Cir. 2005) (quotations and citations omitted), the claimant still bears the burden of demonstrating severity at step two. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987) (“The claimant first must bear the burden . . . at step two that he has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments.”); see also Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 708 (8th Cir. 2007) (“Severity is not an onerous requirement for the claimant to meet, but it is also not a toothless standard.”) (citation omitted). If the claimant fails to carry this burden, and “the process ends at step two, the burden of proof never shifts to the [Commissioner].” Bowen, 482 U.S. at 146 n.5.
In this case, the ALJ concluded at step two that Plaintiff did not have a medical impairment or combination of impairments that were severe. Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled and, therefore, not entitled to DIB.
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred at step two by failing to determine that the following alleged impairments were not severe: (A) neuropathy, visual impairments, and diarrhea; and (B) cognitive ...