United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Northeastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
C. BURKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7, 2018, the Plaintiff Mechelle Campbell filed a complaint
(Doc. 1) seeking judicial review of an adverse final decision
of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
(“the Commissioner”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
405(g). The Commissioner filed an answer to the complaint on
November 1, 2018. (Doc. 11). The Plaintiff filed a brief in
support of her position on January 16, 2019, (Doc. 15) and
the Commissioner filed a brief in support of the decision on
February 7, 2019. (Doc. 16). Therefore, this issue is ripe
for review. For the reasons stated below, the final decision
of the Commissioner is affirmed.
Plaintiff protectively filed for a period of disability and
disability insurance benefits on January 20, 2015. (R. 22).
She alleged that her disability began on April 25, 2010.
Id. Her claim for benefits was denied on August 12,
2015, and the Plaintiff subsequently filed a request for a
hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on June 23,
2015. Id. The Plaintiff appeared before ALJ Patrick
Digby on April 5, 2017. Id. The Plaintiff testified
at the hearing and was questioned by her attorney and the
ALJ. (R. 41, 46). Additionally, vocational expert Dothel
Edwards testified at the hearing. (R. 48). The ALJ issued his
opinion on July 17, 2017. (R. 32). When he issued his
opinion, the ALJ used the five-step evaluation process
promulgated by the Social Security Administration to
determine whether an individual is disabled. (R. 23). The ALJ
made the following determinations:
1. The Plaintiff meets the insured status requirements of the
Social Security Act through December 31, 2015. (R. 24).
2. The Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since April 25, 2010, the alleged onset date of the
3. The Plaintiff has the following severe impairments: an
anxiety disorder and a personality disorder. Id.
4. The Plaintiff 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. (R. 25).
5. The Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity (RFC)
to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels and
has no lifting restrictions. The Plaintiff can: perform
simple tasks; concentrate for two-hour periods across an
eight-hour workday, five-day work week with all customary
breaks; have occasional contact with the public, coworkers,
and supervisors. The Plaintiff cannot: work on ladders,
ropes, or scaffolds; work at unprotected heights; work around
dangerous machinery. Any changes in the work environment
should be infrequent and well explained. (R. 27).
6. The Plaintiff is unable to perform any past relevant work.
7. The Plaintiff was 43 years old at the alleged onset date,
which is defined as a younger individual aged 18-49.
8. The Plaintiff has limited education and can communicate in
9. A determination of transferability of job skills is not
material to the determination of disability as the
Medical-Vocational Rules support a finding that the Plaintiff
is not disabled. Id.
10. With the Plaintiff's age, education, work experience,
and RFC, there are a significant number of jobs in the