Source: http://ar.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170602_0000809.WAR.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-08-21 00:46:45
Document Index: 355458562

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 404', 'art 404', '§ 423', '§ 423', '§ 404', '§ 404']

MICHAEL T. WILLIAMS PLAINTIFF
Plaintiff, Michael T. Williams, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) denying his claims for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) under the provisions of Title II of the Social Security Act (“Act”). In this judicial review, the Court must determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the Commissioner's decision. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Plaintiff protectively filed his application for DIB on March 11, 2013. (ECF No. 10, pp. 21, 942). In his application, Plaintiff alleges disability due to heart attack, knee problems, back problems, and shoulder problems. (ECF No. 10, p. 945). Plaintiff alleges an onset date of April 6, 2012. (ECF No. 10, pp. 21, 942). This application was denied initially and again upon reconsideration. (ECF No. 10, pp. 845-64).
Thereafter, Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on his denied application, and this hearing request was granted. (ECF No. 10, pp. 885-91). Plaintiff's administrative hearing was held on June 26, 2014, in Fort Smith, Arkansas (ECF No. 10, pp. 822-44). Plaintiff appeared in person and was represented by R. Scott Johnson. Id. Plaintiff and Vocational Expert (“VE”) Jim Spragins testified at this hearing. Id. At the time of this hearing, Plaintiff was forty-eight (48) years old, which is defined as a “younger person” under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(c). (ECF No. 10, p. 827). As for his level of education, Plaintiff completed the tenth grade. Id.
After this hearing, on October 17, 2014, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff's application for DIB. (ECF No. 10, pp. 18-29). In this decision, the ALJ found Plaintiff last met the insured status requirements of the Act on June 30, 2012. (ECF No. 10, p. 23, Finding 1). The ALJ found Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity (“SGA”) between April 6, 2012, his alleged onset date, and June 30, 2012, his date last insured. (ECF No. 10, p. 23, Finding 2). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: hypertension, coronary artery disease (status-post myocardial infarction, status-post PTCA with stent), and rheumatoid arthritis. (ECF No. 10, p. 23, Finding 3). Despite being severe, the ALJ determined these impairments did not meet or medically equal the requirements of any of the Listings of Impairments in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Part 404 (“Listings”). (ECF No. 10, p. 24, Finding 4).
The ALJ then considered Plaintiff's Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”). (ECF No. 10, pp. 24-28, Finding 5). First, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints and found his claimed limitations were not entirely credible. Id. Second, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the RFC to perform, “the full range of light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. 404.1567(b).” Id. The ALJ then determined Plaintiff was unable to perform his Past Relevant Work (“PRW”) as a diesel mechanic, heavy equipment mechanic, and tractor mechanic. (ECF No. 10, p. 28, Finding 6). The VE testified at the administrative hearing regarding this issue. (ECF No. 10, pp. 840-43). Based on Plaintiff's age, education, work experience, and RFC, the ALJ determined Medical-Vocational Rule 202.18 directed a finding of “not disabled.” (ECF No. 1, pp. 28-29, Finding 10). The ALJ therefore determined Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined by the Act, from April 6, 2012, through June 30, 2012. (ECF No. 10, p. 29, Finding 11).
Thereafter, on October 24, 2014, Plaintiff requested a review by the Appeals Council (ECF. No. 10, p. 17). The Appeals Council denied this request on December 31, 2015. (ECF No. 10, pp. 5-9). On March 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed the present appeal with this Court. (ECF No. 1). The parties consented to the jurisdiction of this Court on March 24, 2016. (ECF No. 7). This case is now ready for decision.
A claimant for Social Security disability benefits has the burden of proving his disability by establishing a physical or mental disability that has lasted at least one year and that prevents him from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1217 (8th Cir. 2001); See also 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). The Act defines “physical or mental impairment” as “an impairment that results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(3). A Plaintiff must show that his disability, not simply her impairment, has lasted for at least twelve consecutive months.
The Commissioner's regulations require her to apply a five-step sequential evaluation process to each claim for disability benefits: (1) whether the claimant has engaged in substantial gainful activity since filing her claim; (2) whether the claimant has a severe physical and/or mental impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment(s) meet or equal an impairment in the listings; (4) whether the impairment(s) prevent the claimant from doing past relevant work; and, (5) whether the claimant is able to perform other work in the national economy given his age, education, and experience. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). Only if she reaches the final stage does the fact finder consider Plaintiff's age, education, and work experience in light of his residual functional capacity. See McCoy v. Schweiker, 683 F.2d 1138, 1141-42 (8th Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds by Higgins v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 504, 505 (8th Cir. 2000); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v).
Plaintiff raises five issues on appeal: 1) the ALJ improperly disregarded the opinions and findings of Dr. Kendrick, Plaintiff's primary treating physician; 2) the ALJ failed to consider all of Plaintiff's impairments in combination; 3) the ALJ improperly discredited Plaintiff's subjective complaints of pain; 4) the ALJ erred in his RFC determination; and 5) the ALJ failed to fully and fairly develop the record. (ECF No. 13). At the outset, I note the limited relevant period in this case began on April ...