Source: http://mo.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20191227_0002407.EMO.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-04-04 03:41:10
Document Index: 49045768

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 401', '§ 1381', '§ 404', '§ 405', '§ 1383', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404']

DINA BAKER, Plaintiff,
The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denied plaintiff Dina Baker's applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401, et seq. and Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381, et seq. Baker now seeks judicial review. The Commissioner opposes the motion. The issues being fully briefed, and for the reasons set forth, this Court will AFFIRM the Commissioner's decision.
Baker's application was denied at the initial determination level. She then appeared before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). The ALJ found Baker is not disabled because her symptoms were not supported by the medical evidence available. Baker then filed a request for review of the ALJ's decision with the Appeals Council of the Social Security Administration, which was denied. Thus, the decision of the ALJ stands as the final decision of the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.981, 416.1481. Baker now seeks review by this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see also 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3).
II. Disability Determination-The Five-Step Framework
Fourth, if the claimant's impairment is severe, but it does not meet or equal one of the presumptively disabling impairments, the Commissioner assesses whether the claimant retains the “residual functional capacity” (RFC) to perform his or her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 404.1545(a)(5)(i), 416.920(a)(4)(iv), 416.945(a)(5)(i). An RFC is “defined as what the claimant can still do despite his or her physical or mental limitations.” Gann v. Berryhill, 864 F.3d 947, 951 (8th Cir. 2017); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). While an RFC must be based “on all relevant evidence, including the medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and an individual's own description of his limitations, ” an RFC is nonetheless an “administrative assessment”-not a medical assessment-and therefore “it is the responsibility of the ALJ, not a physician, to determine a claimant's RFC.” Boyd v. Colvin, 831F.3d 1015, 1020 (8th Cir. 2016). Thus, “there is no requirement that an RFC finding be supported by a specific medical opinion.” Hensley v. Colvin, 829 F.3d 926, 932 (8th Cir. 2016). Ultimately, the claimant is responsible for providing evidence relating to his RFC and the Commissioner is responsible for developing the claimant's “complete medical history, including arranging for a consultative examination(s) if necessary, and making every reasonable effort to help [the claimant] get medical reports from [the claimant's] own medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3). If, upon the findings of the ALJ, it is determined the claimant retains the RFC to perform past relevant work, he or she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv).
At Step One, the ALJ found Baker met the insured status requirements through September 30, 2019, and had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since November 5, 2015. (Tr. 16). At Step Two, the ALJ found Baker suffers from seven medically determinable impairments: (1) asthma; (2) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); (3) bipolar disorder; (4) borderline personality disorder; (5) panic disorder; (6) learning disability; and (7) attention deficit disorder (ADD). (Tr. 16). At Step Three, the ALJ concluded Baker does not have ...