United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Northern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
P.
BRADLEY MURRAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff
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. (See Docs. 26 & 28 (“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, and the
Commissioner's brief, [2] it is determined that the
Commissioner's decision denying benefits should be
affirmed.[3]
I.
Procedural Background
Plaintiff
filed an application for supplemental security income
benefits on July 20, 2015 and a separate application for
disability insurance benefits on July 23, 2015, both
applications alleging disability beginning on May 19, 2015.
(See Tr. 706-17.) Tubbs' claims were initially
denied on November 10, 2015 (Tr. 618-21; see also
Tr. 626-35) and, following Plaintiff's December 2, 2015
request for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) (see Tr. 636-37), a hearing was
conducted before an ALJ on April 7, 2017 (Tr. 28-58). On
October 20, 2017, the ALJ issued a decision finding that the
claimant was not disabled and, therefore, not entitled to a
period of disability, disability insurance benefits, or
supplemental security income. (Tr. 10-23.) More specifically,
the ALJ proceeded to the fifth step of the five-step
sequential evaluation process and determined that Tubbs
retains the residual functional capacity to perform less than
a full range of sedentary work and those sedentary jobs
identified by the vocational expert (“VE”) during
the administrative hearing (compare Id. at 15-22
with Tr. 50-51 & 53-55). And, ultimately, the
Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review on
July 8, 2018 (Tr. 1-3). Thus, the hearing decision became the
final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security.
Plaintiff
alleges disability due to right knee pain, status-post ORIF,
post-traumatic arthritis, depressive disorder, and anxiety
disorder. The ALJ made the following relevant findings:
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments:
disorders of the knee (status post open reduction and
internal fixation (ORIF)), depressive 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 less than a full range of
sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567([a]) and
416.967([a]). Further, the claimant can never climb ladders,
ropes or scaffolds or ramps and stairs. She can occasionally
kneel, crouch and crawl. She can never work at unprotected
heights or around hazardous moving mechanical parts. Further,
she can frequently reach in all directions using the left and
right upper extremities and frequently handle, finger and
feel with the left and right hand. She needs a cane for
walking on uneven surfaces and for balancing and needs an
option to sit and stand at will. She is limited to performing
simple, routine tasks and making simple work-related
decisions. She can respond appropriately to the public
occasionally. The claimant's time off task can be
accommodated by normal breaks.
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 12, 1969 and was 46 years
old, which is defined as a younger individual age 45-49, on
the alleged disability onset date (20 CFR 404.1563 and
416.963).
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 404.1569, 404.1569(a),
416.969, and 416.969(a)).
10. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined
in the Social Security Act, from May 19, 2015, through the
date of this decision ...