United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
DEJARIO L. KING, Plaintiff,
ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
BRADLEY MURRAY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dejario L. King brings this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), seeking judicial review
of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
denying her claims for a period of disability, disability
insurance benefits, and supplemental security income. The
parties have consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the
Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), for
all proceedings in this Court. (Docs. 18 & 19 (“In
accordance with provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(c) and
Fed.R.Civ.P. 73, the parties in this case consent to have a
United States magistrate judge conduct any and all
proceedings in this case, . . . order the entry of a final
judgment, and conduct all post-judgment
proceedings.”)). Upon consideration of the
administrative record, Plaintiff's brief, the
Commissioner's brief, and the parties' arguments at
the May 20, 2019 hearing before the undersigned, the Court
concludes that the Commissioner's decision denying
benefits should be affirmed.
protectively filed applications for a period of disability
and disability insurance benefits, as well as for
supplemental security income benefits, on or about June 17,
2016, alleging disability beginning on October 28, 2015.
(See Tr. 190-99.) King's claims were initially
denied on August 26, 2016 (Tr. 107-11) and, following
Plaintiff's September 12, 2016 written request for a
hearing before an Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) (see Tr. 114-15), a hearing was
conducted before an ALJ on December 20, 2017 (Tr. 36-53). On
May 15, 2018, the ALJ issued a decision finding that the
claimant was not disabled and, therefore, not entitled to
benefits. (Tr. 10-22.) More specifically, the ALJ determined
that King retains the residual functional capacity to perform
sedentary work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(a) and
416.967(a), with certain identified mental limitations, and
can perform those sedentary jobs identified by the vocational
expert (“VE”) during the administrative hearing
(compare Id. at 15 & 21-22 with Tr. 50
& 51). And, ultimately, the Appeals Council denied
Plaintiff's request for review on August 28, 2018 (Tr.
1-3). Thus, the hearing decision became the final decision of
the Commissioner of Social Security.
alleges disability due to sarcoidosis, fibromyalgia,
degenerative joint disease, obesity, affective disorder, and
anxiety disorder. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) made the
following relevant findings:
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments:
sarcoidosis, fibromyalgia, degenerative joint disease,
obesity, affective disorder, and anxiety disorder (20 CFR
404.1520(c) and 416.920(c)).
. . .
4. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of
one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P,
Appendix 1 (20 CFR 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526,
416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926).
. . .
5. After careful consideration of the entire record, the
undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual
functional capacity to perform sedentary work as defined in
20 CFR 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a) except she is limited to
simple routine tasks; simple work-related decisions;
occasional interaction with supervisors, coworkers and the
public; and gradual changes in a routine work setting.
. . .
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work
(20 CFR 404.1565 and 416.965).
. . .
7. The claimant was born on May 1, 1974, and was 41 years
old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-44, on
the alleged disability onset date (20 CFR 404.1563 and
8. The claimant has at least a high school education and is
able to communicate in English (20 CFR 404.1564 and 416.964).
9. Transferability of job skills is not material to the
determination of disability because using the
Medical-Vocational Rules as a framework supports a finding
that the claimant is “not disabled, ” whether or
not the claimant has transferable job skills (See SSR 82-41
and 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2).
10. Considering the claimant's age, education, work
experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs
that exist in significant numbers in the national economy
that the claimant can perform (20 CFR ...