United States District Court, D. Colorado
BEVERLY J. DARROW, Plaintiff,
NANCY BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
REID NEUREITER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
government determined that Plaintiff Beverly J. Darrow is not
disabled for purposes of the Social Security Act.
24.) Ms. Darrow has asked this Court to review that decision.
The Court has jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and
both parties have agreed to have this case decided by a U.S.
Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Dkt. #10.)
Social Security appeals, the Court reviews the decision of
the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) to determine
whether the factual findings are supported by substantial
evidence and whether the correct legal standards were
applied. See Pisciotta v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 1074,
1075 (10th Cir. 2007). “Substantial evidence is such
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion. It requires more than a scintilla, but
less than a preponderance.” Raymond v. Astrue,
621 F.3d 1269, 1271-72 (10th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
marks omitted). The Court “should, indeed must,
exercise common sense” and “cannot insist on
technical perfection.” Keyes-Zachary v.
Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156, 1166 (10th Cir. 2012). The Court
cannot reweigh the evidence or its credibility. Lax v.
Astrue, 489 F.3d 1080, 1084 (10th Cir. 2007).
second step of the Commissioner's five-step sequence for
making determinations,  the ALJ found that Ms. Darrow
“has the following severe impairments: posttraumatic
stress disorder [(“PTSD”)], generalized anxiety
disorder, major depressive disorder, adjustment disorder,
insomnia, and pain disorder.” (AR 12.) The ALJ found
Ms. Darrow's hypertension and vertigo to be non-severe
impairments. (AR 13.) He also determined that Ms. Darrow had
no medically determinable impairment of fibromyalgia, noting
that she has never been diagnosed with this disorder,
“and no provider has ever excluded other causes for her
purported claim.” (Id.)
then determined at step three that Ms. Darrow “does not
have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets
or medically equals the severity of one of the listed
impairments” in the regulations. (AR 14.) He found that
Ms. Darrow's impairments caused a mild restriction in
activities of daily living, moderate difficulties in social
functioning and concentration, persistence, or pace, and
noted that Ms. Darrow had no episodes of decompensation. (AR
14-15.) The ALJ also determined that Ms. Darrow did not have
a medically documented history of chronic affective disorder
or an impairment resulting in the complete inability to
function independently outside her home. (AR 15-16.)
he concluded that Ms. Darrow did not have an impairment or
combination of impairments that meets the severity of the
listed impairments, the ALJ found that Ms. Darrow has the
following residual functional capacity (“RFC”):
[Ms. Darrow] has the residual functional capacity to perform
a full range of work at all exertional levels but with the
following nonexertional limitations: the claimant cannot
climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, and she should have no
exposure to hazards. The claimant can understand, remember,
and carry out no more than simple tasks and instructions. The
claimant should not be subject to production-rate pace work,
such as assembly line work. The claimant should not perform
team or tandem work, and she cannot perform customer-service
found that Ms. Darrow was unable to perform any past relevant
work. (AR 22-23.) Ms. Darrow, at 55, was found to be an
individual of advanced age on the alleged disability onset
date. (AR 12, 23.) The ALJ concluded that, considering Ms.
Darrow's age, education, work experience, and RFC,
“there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in
the national economy” that Ms. Darrow could perform.
(AR 23.) Based on testimony of a Vocational Expert
(“VE”), the ALJ found Ms. Darrow could perform
other work such as a kitchen helper, hospital cleaner, and
floor waxer. (AR 23-24.) Accordingly, Ms. Darrow was deemed
not to have been under a disability from the alleged onset
date of May 29, 2013. (AR 24.)
Darrow now argues that the ALJ improperly weighed the opinion
evidence of consultative psychologist Dr. Immaculate Wesley.
Darrow argues that the ALJ committed a reversible error by
giving examining psychologist Dr. Wesley's opinion
minimal weight. The ...