Source: http://ar.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20150121_0000039.WAR.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-04-26 13:36:42
Document Index: 631606071

Matched Legal Cases: ['§405', '§ 423', '§ 405', '§ 404', 'art, 363', '§ 404']

| Sawyer v. Colvin
Sawyer v. Colvin
CHERYL L. SAWYER, Plaintiff,v.CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner Social Security Administration, Defendant.
Plaintiff, Cheryl Sawyer, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. §405(g), seeking judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration (Commissioner) denying her claim for disability insurance benefits ("DIB") and supplemental security income ("SSI") under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (hereinafter "the Act"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). 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 filed applications for DIB and SSI on March 7and March 8, 2011, respectively, alleging an onset date of September 1, 2009, due to a history of back injury, depression, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD"), neck pain, left knee pain, and feet pain. Tr. 144, 159-160, 199-200, 211, 225. Her applications were denied initially and on reconsideration. Tr. 63-66, 79-83. An administrative hearing was held on July 3, 2012. Tr. 37-62. Plaintiff was present and represented by counsel.
At the time of the hearing, Plaintiff was 44 years old and possessed the equivalent of a high school education and certification as a nurse aide. Tr. 145. She had past relevant work ("PRW") experience as a molding machine tender, certified nursing assistant ("CNA"), and deck hull assembler. Tr. 23, 39-40, 42-44, 151-158, 170-181, 226-227.
On August 17, 2012, the ALJ found Plaintiff's depressive disorder, obesity, neck and back pain, and COPD to be severe, but concluded they did not meet or medically equal one of the listed impairments in Appendix 1, Subpart P, Regulation No. 4. Tr. 16-18. The ALJ concluded that the Plaintiff could perform sedentary work but must avoid even moderate exposure to fumes, odors, gases, poor ventilation and similar environments. Tr. 19. In addition, he found the Plaintiff to be limited to work "involving simple, routine, and repetitive tasks involving only simple, work-related decisions, with few, if any, workplace changes" and requiring no more than incidental contact with coworkers, supervisors, and the general public. Tr. 19. With the assistance of a vocational expert, the ALJ concluded Plaintiff could perform work as a clerical worker, assembler, and inspector. Tr. 24.
Plaintiff appealed this decision to the Appeals Council, but said request for review was denied on September 21, 2013. Tr. 1-7. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this action. ECF No. 1. Both parties have filed appeal briefs, and the case is now ready for decision. ECF Nos. 10, 11.
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ's decision is not supported by substantial evidence because his RFC determination is inconsistent with the opinion of the only physical examiner of record and is not supported by the record as a whole. The court has reviewed the briefs filed by the parties, the transcript of the proceedings before the Commission, including a review of the hearing before the ALJ, the medical records, and relevant administrative records and finds the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence.
RFC is the most a person can do despite that person's limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). A disability claimant has the burden of establishing his or her RFC. See Masterson v. Barnhart, 363 F.3d 731, 737 (8th Cir. 2004). "The ALJ determines a claimant's RFC based on all relevant evidence in the record, including medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and the claimant's own descriptions of his or her limitations." Davidson v. Astrue, 578 F.3d 838, 844 (8th Cir. 2009) ; see also Jones v. Astrue, 619 F.3d 963, 971 (8th Cir. 2010) (ALJ is responsible for determining RFC based on all relevant evidence, including medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and claimant's own description of his limitations). Limitations resulting from symptoms such as pain are also factored into the assessment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has held that a "claimant's residual functional capacity is a medical question." Lauer v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 700, 704 (8th Cir. 2001). Therefore, an ALJ's determination ...