United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Williams Chief United States Magistrate Judge.
plaintiff, Rhonda Rae McDonald (claimant), seeks judicial
review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security (Commissioner) denying claimant's application
for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the
Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1385 (Act).
For the reasons that follow, the Court affirms the
this background, the Court relied on the administrative
record (AR) and the Joint Stipulation of Facts (Doc. 17).
Claimant was born in 1954, and she was 58 years old at the
time of the alleged onset of disability. (Doc. 17, at 1; AR
Claimant had a high school education and past relevant work
as a medical records clerk. (Doc. 17, at 1; AR 16).
September 3, 2013, claimant filed her application with an
alleged onset date of June 4, 2013. (AR 8, 136-37). In 2014,
the Commissioner denied claimant's application on initial
consideration and again upon reconsideration. (AR 8, 82-85,
88-91). Following a hearing, on November 25, 2015,
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Henry Hamilton found claimant
was not disabled. (AR 8-18). On October 7, 2016, the Appeals
Council denied review. (AR 1-3). The ALJ's decision thus
became the final decision of the Commissioner. Sims v.
Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 107 (2000).
October 28, 2016, claimant filed a complaint in this Court
seeking review of the Commissioner's decision. (Doc. 5).
On November 17, 2016, with the consent of the parties, the
Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief United States District
Court Judge, transferred this case to a United States
Magistrate Judge for final disposition and entry of judgment.
(Doc. 9). Claimant filed her brief on May 9, 2017 (Doc. 18),
and on June 7, 2017, the Commissioner filed her brief (Doc.
19). On June 21, 2017, this case was deemed fully briefed and
ready for decision. (Doc. 20).
DISABILITY DETERMINATIONS AND THE BURDEN OF
disability is defined as “the inability to engage in
any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically
determinable physical or mental impairment which can be
expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be
expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12
months.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A),
1382c(a)(3)(A). An years old at the time. The Court finds the
discrepancy immaterial because in either event claimant was
defined as an individual of advanced age. individual has a
disability when, due to his physical or mental impairments,
he “is not only unable to do his previous work but
cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience,
engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which
exists . . . in significant numbers either in the region
where such individual lives or in several regions of the
country.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(2)(A),
1382c(a)(3)(B). If the claimant is able to do work which
exists in the national economy but is unemployed because of
inability to get work, lack of opportunities in the local
area, economic conditions, employer hiring practices, or
other factors, the ALJ will still find the claimant not
determine whether a claimant has a disability within the
meaning of the Act, the Commissioner follows the five-step
sequential evaluation process outlined in the regulations.
Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 707-08 (8th Cir.
2007). First, the Commissioner will consider a claimant's
work activity. If the claimant is engaged in substantial
gainful activity, then the claimant is not disabled.
“Substantial” work activity involves physical or
mental activities. “Gainful” activity is work
done for pay or profit, even if the claimant did not
ultimately receive pay or profit.
if the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful
activity, then the Commissioner looks to the severity of the
claimant's physical and mental impairments. If the
impairments are not severe, then the claimant is not
disabled. An impairment is not severe if it does not
significantly limit a claimant's physical or mental
ability to perform basic work activities. Kirby, 500
F.3d at 707.
ability to do basic work activities means the ability and
aptitude necessary to perform most jobs. These include: (1)
physical functions such as walking, standing, sitting,
lifting, pushing, pulling, reaching, carrying, or handling;
(2) capacities for seeing, hearing, and speaking; (3)
understanding, carrying out, and remembering simple
instructions; (4) use of judgment; (5) responding
appropriately to supervision, co-workers, and usual work
situations; and (6) dealing with changes in a routine work
setting. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 141 (1987);
20 C.F.R. § 416.921.
if the claimant has a severe impairment, then the
Commissioner will determine the medical severity of the
impairment. If the impairment meets or equals one of the
presumptively disabling impairments listed in the
regulations, then the claimant is considered disabled
regardless of age, education, and work experience. Kelley
v. Callahan, 133 F.3d 583, 588 (8th Cir. 1998).
if the claimant's impairment is severe, but it does not
meet or equal one of the presumptively disabling impairments,
then the Commissioner will assess the claimant's residual
functional capacity (RFC) and the demands of his past
relevant work. If the claimant can still do his past relevant
work, then he is considered not disabled. Past relevant work
is any work the claimant performed within the past fifteen
years of his application that was substantial gainful
activity and lasted long enough for the claimant to learn how
to do it. “RFC is a medical question defined wholly in
terms of the claimant's physical ability to perform
exertional tasks or, in other words, what the claimant can
still do despite his or her physical or mental
limitations.” Lewis v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 642,
646 (8th Cir. 2003) (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted). The RFC is based on all relevant medical and other
evidence. The claimant is responsible for providing the
evidence the Commissioner will use to determine the RFC.
Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065, 1069 n.5 (8th Cir.
2000). If a claimant retains enough RFC to perform past
relevant work, then the claimant is not disabled.
if the claimant's RFC as determined in Step Four will not
allow the claimant to perform past relevant work, then the
burden shifts to the Commissioner to show there is other work
the claimant can do, given the claimant's RFC, age,
education, and work experience. The Commissioner must show
not only that the claimant's RFC will allow him or her to
make the adjustment to other work, but also that other work
exists in significant numbers in the national economy.
Eichelberger v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 584, 591 (8th
Cir. 2004). If the claimant can make the adjustment, then the
Commissioner will find the claimant not disabled. At Step
Five, the Commissioner has the responsibility of developing
the claimant's complete medical ...