Opinion ID: 3187989
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: ALJ's Disability Determination

Text: The ALJ determined that Michel is not disabled. The ALJ undertook the familiar five-step sequential process for determining disability. See Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 790 (8th Cir. 2005) (During the five-step process, the ALJ considers (1) whether the claimant is gainfully employed, (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment, (3) whether the impairment meets the criteria of any Social Security Income listings, (4) whether the impairment prevents the claimant from performing past relevant work, and (5) whether the impairment necessarily prevents the claimant from doing any other work. (quotation and citation omitted)). -10- The ALJ applied the first step of the analysis and determined that Michel had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since October 22, 2009. See Kluesner v. Astrue, 607 F.3d 533, 537 (8th Cir. 2010) (The ALJ first determines if the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity. If so, the claimant is not disabled.). At the second step, the ALJ concluded from the medical evidence that Michel has the following severe impairments: fibromyalgia; mood disorder; pain disorder; chronic fatigue syndrome. See id. (Second, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a severe medical impairment that has lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months.). At the third step, the ALJ determined that Michel did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in the regulations. See id. (Third, the ALJ considers the severity of the impairment, specifically whether it meets or equals one of the listed impairments. If the ALJ finds a severe impairment that meets the duration requirement, and meets or equals a listed impairment, then the claimant is disabled.). At the fourth step, the ALJ determined Michel's RFC consistent with the first hypothetical posed to the VE; that is, that Michel could perform sedentary work. See id. (However, the fourth step asks whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity to do past relevant work. If so, the claimant is not disabled.). In determining Michel's RFC, the ALJ discussed in great detail the opinions of Michel's treating sources, examining sources, and non-examining sources and the weight that the ALJ afforded to these sources. At step five, the ALJ determined that based on her age, education, prior work experience, and RFC, Michel could work at jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy; therefore, she was not disabled. See id. (Fifth, the ALJ determines whether the claimant can perform other jobs in the economy. If so, the claimant is not disabled.). -11- Michel requested review of the ALJ's decision to the Appeals Council of the Social Security Administration (Appeals Council). The Appeals Council denied Michel's request for review. Michel then sought review in the federal district court, which affirmed the ALJ's decision.