Rau v. Social Security Administration

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ROBERTA ANNE RAU, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
) 	Case No. CIV-20-170-JFH-KEW
)
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL 	)
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Roberta Anne Rau (the “Claimant”) requests judicial
review of the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration 	(the 	“Commissioner”) 	denying 	her 	application 	for
disability 	benefits 	under 	the 	Social 	Security 	Act. 	Claimant
appeals 	the 	decision 	of 	the 	Administrative 	Law 	Judge 	(“ALJ”) 	and
asserts 	that 	the 	Commissioner 	erred 	because 	the 	ALJ 	incorrectly
determined she was not disabled. For the reasons discussed below,
it is the recommendation of the undersigned that the Commissioner’s
decision be REVERSED and the case REMANDED for further proceedings.
Social Security Law and Standard of Review
Disability 	under 	the 	Social 	Security 	Act 	is 	defined 	as 	the
“inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason
of 	any 	medically 	determinable 	physical 	or 	mental 	impairment. . .”
42 	U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). 	A 	claimant 	is 	disabled 	under 	the Social
Security 	Act 	“only 	if 	his 	physical 	or 	mental 	impairments 	are 	of
such 	severity 	that 	he 	is 	not 	only 	unable 	to 	do 	his 	previous 	work
6:20-cv-00170-JFH-SPS Document 18 Filed in ED/OK on 08/31/21 Page 1 of 14

2
but 	cannot, 	considering 	his 	age, 	education, 	and 	work 	experience,
engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work 	which 	exists
in 	the 	national 	economy. 	. 	.” 42 	U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A). Social
Security 	regulations 	implement 	a 	five-step 	sequential 	process 	to
evaluate a disability claim. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. 1
Judicial 	review 	of 	the 	Commissioner’s 	determination 	is
limited 	in 	scope 	by 	42 	U.S.C. 	§ 	405(g). 	This 	Court’s 	review 	is
limited to two inquiries: first, whether the decision was supported
by 	substantial 	evidence; 	and, 	second, 	whether 	the 	correct 	legal
standards 	were 	applied. 	Hawkins 	v. 	Chater, 	113 	F.3d 	1162, 	1164
(10th 	Cir. 	1997) 	(citation 	omitted). 	The 	term 	“substantial
evidence” has been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court
1 	Step 	one 	requires 	the 	claimant 	to 	establish 	that 	he 	is 	not
engaged 	in 	substantial 	gainful 	activity, 	as 	defined 	by 	20 	C.F.R. 	§§
404.1510, 	416.910. 	Step 	two 	requires 	that 	the 	claimant 	establish 	that
he has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments that
significantly limit his ability to do basic work activities. 	20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1521, 416.921. If the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful
activity 	(step 	one) 	or 	if 	the 	claimant’s 	impairment 	is 	not 	medically
severe 	(step 	two), 	disability 	benefits 	are 	denied. 	At 	step 	three, 	the
claimant’s impairment is compared with certain impairments listed in 20
C.F.R. 	Pt. 	404, 	Subpt. 	P, 	App. 	1. 	A 	claimant 	suffering 	from 	a 	listed
impairment or impairments “medically equivalent” to a listed impairment
is 	determined 	to 	be 	disabled 	without 	further 	inquiry. 	If 	not, 	the
evaluation proceeds to step four, where claimant must establish that he
does not retain the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform his
past relevant work. If the claimant’s step four burden is met, the burden
shifts to the Commissioner to establish at step five that work exists in
significant numbers in the national economy which the claimant – taking
into account his age, education, work experience, and RFC – can perform.
Disability 	benefits 	are 	denied 	if 	the 	Commissioner 	shows 	that 	the
impairment which precluded the performance of past relevant work does not
preclude 	alternative 	work. 	See 	generally, 	Williams 	v. 	Bowen, 	844 	F.2d
748, 750-51 (10th Cir. 1988).
6:20-cv-00170-JFH-SPS Document 18 Filed in ED/OK on 08/31/21 Page 2 of 14

3
to 	require 	“more 	than 	a 	mere 	scintilla. 	It 	means 	such 	relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
a 	conclusion.” 	Richardson 	v. 	Perales, 	402 	U.S. 	389, 	401 	(1971),
quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938).
The 	court 	may 	not 	re-weigh 	the 	evidence 	nor 	substitute 	its
discretion 	for 	that 	of 	the 	agency. 	Casias 	v. 	Secretary 	of 	Health
& Human Servs., 933 F.2d 799, 800 (10th Cir. 1991). Nevertheless,
the 	court 	must 	review 	the 	record 	as 	a 	whole, 	and 	the
“substantiality of the evidence must take into account whatever in
the record fairly detracts from its weight.” Universal Camera Corp.
v. 	NLRB, 	340 	U.S. 	474, 	488 	(1951); 	see 	also, 	Casias, 	933 	F.2d 	at
800-01.
Claimant’s Background
Claimant was 47 years old at the time of the ALJ’s decision.
She has at least a high school education and worked in the past as
a 	physician. 	Claimant 	alleges 	an 	inability 	to 	work 	beginning 	on
October 	31, 	2016, 	due 	to 	limitations 	resulting 	from 	depression,
anxiety, bipolar disorder, back and foot pain, shortness of breath,
morbid obesity, and migraines.
Procedural History
On July 	10, 	2017, Claimant 	filed for 	a 	period 	of 	disability
and disability insurance benefits under Title II (42 U.S.C. § 401,
et seq.) of the Social Security Act and for supplemental security
income benefits pursuant to Title XVI (42 U.S.C. § 1381, et seq.)
6:20-cv-00170-JFH-SPS Document 18 Filed in ED/OK on 08/31/21 Page 3 of 14

4
of 	the 	Social 	Security 	Act. 	Claimant’s 	applications 	were 	denied
initially and upon reconsideration. On April 9, 2019, ALJ Deirdre
O. Dexter conducted a hearing in Tulsa, Oklahoma, at which Claimant
testified. 	On 	May 	17, 	2019, 	the 	ALJ 	entered 	an 	unfavorable
decision. 	Claimant 	requested 	review 	by 	the 	Appeals 	Council, 	and
on April 6, 2020, the Appeals Council denied review. As a result,
the 	decision 	of 	the 	ALJ 	represents 	the 	Commissioner’s 	final
decision 	for 	purposes 	of 	further 	appeal. 	20 	C.F.R. 	§§ 	404.981,
416.1481.
Decision of the Administrative Law Judge
The 	ALJ 	made 	her 	decision 	at 	step 	five 	of 	the 	sequential
evaluation. 	She determined that while Claimant suffered from severe
impairments, she did not meet a listing and retained the residual
functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform light work, with additional
limitations.
Errors Alleged for Review
Claimant 	asserts 	the 	ALJ 	committed 	error 	by 	(1) 	failing 	to
demonstrate 	how 	she 	considered 	Claimant’s 	morbid 	obesity 	in
combination 	with 	her 	diagnosed 	osteoarthritis 	to 	inform 	her
conclusion 	that 	Claimant 	retained 	the 	capacity 	to 	perform 	the
prolonged 	standing 	and 	walking 	required 	of 	light 	work; 	and 	(2)
finding 	that 	substantial 	evidence 	supported 	her 	finding 	that
despite Claimant’s severe mental impairments and the side effects
6:20-cv-00170-JFH-SPS Document 18 Filed in ED/OK on 08/31/21 Page 4 of 14

5
of 	medication 	that 	Claimant 	retained 	the 	capacity 	to 	perform 	the
demands of work on a regular and continuing basis.
Consideration of Obesity
In her decision, the ALJ found Claimant suffered from severe
impairments of obesity, bipolar disorder, and migraines. (Tr. 17).
She 	determined 	Claimant 	could 	perform 	light 	work 	with 	additional
limitations. Claimant could lift, carry, push, or pull up to twenty
pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently, sit up to six hours
in an eight-hour workday, and stand and/or walk up to six hours in
an 	eight-hour 	workday. 	She 	could 	frequently 	stoop 	or 	crouch,
occasionally 	climb 	ramps 	or 	stairs, 	kneel, 	or 	crawl. 	Claimant’s
job should not involve climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. She
could perform simple, routine tasks and was able to interact with
supervisors as needed to receive work instructions. Claimant could
work 	in 	proximity 	to 	co-workers, 	but 	the 	job 	should 	not 	involve
close 	communication 	or 	cooperation 	with 	co-workers 	to 	complete
work tasks. Claimant’s job should not involve interacting with the
general 	public 	or 	more 	than 	ordinary 	and 	routine 	changes 	in 	the
work setting or work duties. (Tr. 21).
After consultation with a vocational expert 	(“VE”), the ALJ
determined 	Claimant 	could 	perform 	the 	representative 	jobs 	of
router, marker, and mail clerk, all of which the ALJ found existed
in 	sufficient 	numbers 	in 	the 	national 	economy. 	(Tr. 	29). 	As 	a
result, 	the ALJ 	concluded Claimant was not under a disability from
6:20-cv-00170-JFH-SPS Document 18 Filed in ED/OK on 08/31/21 Page 5 of 14

6
October 31, 2016, her amended onset date, through the date of the
decision. (Tr. 29).
Claimant 	contends 	that 	even 	though 	the 	ALJ 	determined 	her
obesity 	was 	a 	severe 	impairment, 	she 	failed 	to 	properly 	consider
Claimant’s 	morbid 	obesity 	combined 	with 	her 	other 	impairments,
including 	osteoarthritis, 	thereby 	ignoring 	the 	requirements 	of
Social 	Security 	Ruling 	02-01p. 	She 	asserts 	that 	had 	the 	ALJ
considered all the evidence and the effects of her morbid obesity
on 	her 	other 	impairments, 	the 	ALJ 	could 	not 	have 	determined
Claimant had the RFC to perform the prolonged standing and walking
required of unskilled light work.
Social 	Security 	Ruling 	02-1p 	requires 	an 	ALJ 	consider 	that
“the 	combined 	effects 	of 	obesity 	with 	other 	impairments 	can 	be
greater 	than 	the 	effects 	of 	each 	of 	the 	impairments 	considered
separately” when assessing the RFC. 	Soc. Sec. Rul. 02-1p, 2000 WL
628049, *1 (Sept. 12, 2002). 	“Obesity in combination with another
impairment 	may 	or 	may 	not 	increase 	the 	severity 	or 	functional
limitations of the other impairment.” Id. at *6. Thus, “assumptions
about the severity or functional effects of obesity combined with
other impairments [will not be made].” Id.
The ALJ considered Claimant’s obesity in the decision and in
combination 	with 	her 	other 	severe 	and 	non-severe 	impairments,
including Claimant’s osteoarthritis. The ALJ determined Claimant’s
obesity was a severe impairment and her osteoarthritis was a non-
6:20-cv-00170-JFH-SPS Document 18 Filed in ED/OK on 08/31/21 Page 6 of 14

7
severe 	impairment. 	(Tr. 	17-18). 	She 	noted 	that 	“[t]here 	is 	no
evidence 	to 	support 	the 	conclusion 	that 	any 	of 	the 	foregoing
impairments 	cause 	a 	functional 	limitation 	singularly 	or 	in
combination with other impairments.” (Tr. 18).
The ALJ then discussed the evidence, including that Claimant
requested 	an 	anti-inflammatory 	medication 	for 	her 	arthritis 	in
January 	of 	2017, 	after 	complaining 	of 	several 	joints 	bothering
her, 	especially 	her 	feet. 	Claimant 	complained 	to 	her 	doctor 	that
“she walks and stands often at work and has difficulty tolerating
this especially towards the end of the day[.]” Claimant, however,
exhibited 	no 	swollen 	joints, 	no 	redness, 	and 	no 	increased 	heat.
(Tr. 	18, 	24, 	348). 	In 	April 	of 	2018, 	Claimant’s 	weight 	was 	noted
to 	be 	297 	pounds, 	and 	she 	exhibited 	normal 	muscle 	strength 	and
tone 	and 	normal 	gait. 	(Tr. 	18, 	434). 	When 	making 	her 	RFC
determination, 	the 	ALJ 	discussed 	Claimant’s 	obesity 	in 	detail,
noting her body mass index and the changes in her weight. The ALJ
specifically found that “the [C]laimant’s obesity, in combination
with 	her 	other 	impairments, 	somewhat 	reduces 	the 	[C]laimant’s
capability 	for 	work 	activity. 	A 	reduction 	in 	capacity 	to 	work 	at
the 	light 	exertion 	range 	with 	some 	further 	appropriate 	work
restrictions is, therefore, warranted.” (Tr. 23).
Moreover, 	the 	ALJ 	found 	that 	state 	agency 	reviewing
physician’s 	opinion 	that 	Claimant 	could 	perform 	medium 	work 	was
unpersuasive, 	indicating 	it 	was 	not 	consistent 	with 	the 	record
6:20-cv-00170-JFH-SPS Document 18 Filed in ED/OK on 08/31/21 Page 7 of 14

8
evidence. 	The 	ALJ 	determined 	that 	“[d]ue 	to 	the 	[C]laimant’s
obesity, 	in 	combination 	with 	her 	other 	impairments, 	. 	. 	. 	the
medical 	record 	better 	supports 	a 	[RFC] 	for 	the 	[C]laimant 	to
perform 	work 	at 	the 	light 	exertion 	level, 	with 	postural
restrictions.” 	(Tr. 	27). 	Further, 	the 	ALJ 	considered 	Claimant’s
testimony, 	which 	did 	not 	include 	complaints 	regarding 	her
arthritis 	and 	her 	ability 	to 	stand 	and/or 	walk. 	(Tr. 	22-23, 	50-
57).
The 	ALJ 	specifically 	considered 	Claimant’s 	obesity 	in
combination with her other impairments and referenced that she was
limiting 	Claimant 	to 	light 	work 	with 	additional 	postural
limitations in the RFC to account for Claimant’s obesity. (23, 27-
28). 	This 	is 	sufficient 	to 	establish 	that 	Claimant’s 	obesity 	was
considered with her other impairments in the RFC.
Assessment of Mental RFC
Claimant 	also 	asserts 	that 	substantial 	evidence 	does 	not
support the ALJ’s finding that she retained the capacity to perform
the demands of work on a regular and continuing basis, especially
in 	light 	of 	her 	severe 	mental 	impairment 	and 	side 	effects 	of
medication. Specifically, Claimant argues the record demonstrates
her 	depression 	and 	the 	side 	effects 	of 	medication 	caused 	her 	to
experience 	low 	energy, 	suffer 	from 	lethargy, 	and 	sleep
excessively. 	She 	maintains 	that 	these 	issues 	were 	noted 	by
consulting psychologist, Joseph James, Psy.D., LPC, along with his
6:20-cv-00170-JFH-SPS Document 18 Filed in ED/OK on 08/31/21 Page 8 of 14

9
opinion 	that 	Claimant’s 	ability 	to 	execute 	tasks 	of 	daily 	living
and 	adaptive 	functioning 	were 	severely 	impaired. 	Claimant
maintains 	that 	the 	ALJ 	failed 	to 	explain 	how 	this 	portion 	of 	Dr.
James’ 	opinion 	was 	consistent 	with 	her 	ability 	to 	complete 	tasks
and adapt to work.
Defendant responds that the ALJ’s RFC assessment aligns with
Dr. James’ opinions and that the portion of his opinion referenced
by 	Claimant 	is 	taken 	out 	of 	context, 	as 	it 	related 	to 	her 	money
management 	skills 	with 	her 	medical 	practice. 	Moreover, 	Defendant
asserts that Dr. James never determined that severe impairments in
adaptive functioning and the ability to execute activities of daily
living exhibited in running a medical practice precluded Claimant
from performing unskilled work.
Claimant underwent a mental status examination with Dr. James
on 	October 	17, 	2017. 	Claimant 	reported 	she 	suffered 	from 	a
depressed mood most of the day, spent 18 hours a day either in bed
asleep or “laying around,” and she had “a loss of energy with daily
feelings 	of 	worthlessness 	and 	hopelessness.” 	Dr. 	James’
observation 	of 	Claimant’s 	behavior 	and 	mental 	status 	during 	the
evaluation 	“suggest[ed] 	she 	is 	capable 	of 	engaging 	in 	common
work/learning-related mental tasks as she appeared oriented, well
kept, 	and 	she 	was 	able 	to 	maintain 	adequate 	and 	appropriate 	eye
contact.” 	His 	diagnosed 	Claimant 	with 	major 	depressive 	disorder,
unspecified, with anxious distress.
6:20-cv-00170-JFH-SPS Document 18 Filed in ED/OK on 08/31/21 Page 9 of 14

10
When noting the effects of her identified mental impairments
on her functioning, with regard to her activities of daily living,
Dr. 	James 	concluded 	“[C]laimant’s 	capacity 	to 	execute 	tasks 	of
daily 	living 	and 	adaptive 	functioning 	(i.e. 	self-care, 	grooming,
shopping, 	cooking, 	house 	cleaning, 	and 	money 	management) 	is
estimated to be severely impaired for occupational and educational
purposes 	as 	the 	[C]laimant 	reportedly 	has 	spent 	more 	than 	$200K
supporting a medical practice while not seeing patients.” Dr. James
also noted in his report that Claimant had complained that all the
money 	she 	had 	to 	support 	her 	practice 	was 	“gone 	now” 	because 	she
was 	not 	able 	“to 	adequately 	function 	on 	a 	day-to-day 	basis.” 	Dr.
James 	further 	estimated 	that 	Claimant’s 	ability 	to 	understand
work/school related activities, remember work/school information,
and 	concentrate 	and 	persist 	in 	work/school 	related 	tasks 	was
adequate. 	He 	found 	her 	ability 	to 	socially 	interact 	and 	adapt 	in
a 	work/school 	related 	environment 	was 	moderately 	impaired 	based
upon 	Claimant’s 	history 	of 	poor 	coping 	and 	social 	isolation. 	Dr.
James 	concluded 	Claimant’s 	overall 	prognosis 	was 	fair 	and
functional improvements were expected, but a full recovery was in
question. (Tr. 392-97).
Because 	Claimant 	filed 	her 	claims 	after 	March 	27, 	2017, 	the
medical 	opinion 	evidence 	in 	the 	case 	is 	subject 	to 	evaluation
pursuant 	to 	20 	C.F.R. 	§§ 	404.1520c, 	416.920c. 	Under 	the 	revised
regulations, 	the 	ALJ 	does 	not 	“defer 	or 	give 	any 	specific
6:20-cv-00170-JFH-SPS Document 18 Filed in ED/OK on 08/31/21 Page 10 of 14

11
evidentiary 	weight, 	including 	controlling 	weight, 	to 	any 	medical
opinion(s)[.]” 	20 	C.F.R. 	§§ 	404.1520c(a), 	416.920c(a). 	Instead,
she must “articulate” in her decision “how persuasive [she] find[s]
all 	of 	the 	medical 	opinions 	and 	all 	of 	the 	prior 	administrative
medical 	findings 	in 	[the] 	case 	record” 	by 	considering 	a 	list 	of
factors. 	20 	C.F.R. 	§§ 	404.1520c(b), 	416.920c(b). 	The 	factors
include: (i) supportability, (ii) consistency, (iii) relationship
with 	the 	claimant 	(including 	length 	of 	treatment 	relationship,
frequency 	of 	examinations, 	purpose 	and 	extent 	of 	treatment
relationship, 	and 	examining 	relationship), 	(iv) 	specialization,
and (v) other factors that tend to support or contradict a medical
opinion 	or 	prior 	administrative 	finding 	(including, 	but 	not
limited 	to, 	“evidence 	showing 	a 	medical 	source 	has 	familiarity
with 	the 	other 	evidence 	in 	the 	claim 	or 	an 	understanding 	of 	our
disability 	program’s 	policies 	and 	evidentiary 	requirements.”).
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(c), 416.920c(c).
The 	most 	important 	factors 	are 	supportability 	and
consistency, 	and 	the 	ALJ 	must 	explain 	how 	both 	factors 	were
considered. 	See 	20 	C.F.R. 	§§ 	404.1520c(b)(2), 	416.920c(b)(2).
Generally, the ALJ is not required to explain how the other factors
were 	considered. 	Id. 	However, 	if 	the 	ALJ 	finds 	“that 	two 	or 	more
medical 	opinions 	or 	prior 	administrative 	findings 	about 	the 	same
issue 	are 	both 	equally 	well-supported 	. 	. 	. 	and 	consistent 	with
the record . . . but are not exactly the same, [she] will articulate
6:20-cv-00170-JFH-SPS Document 18 Filed in ED/OK on 08/31/21 Page 11 of 14

12
how 	[she] 	considered 	the 	other 	most 	persuasive 	factors 	in
paragraphs (c)(3) through (c)(5)[.]” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(b)(3),
416.920c(b)(3).
An 	ALJ 	continues 	to 	have 	the 	duty 	to 	evaluate 	every 	medical
opinion in the record regardless of its source. Hamlin v. Barnhart,
365 F.3d 1208, 1215 (10th Cir. 2004). She may not “pick and choose
among medical reports, using portions of evidence favorable to her
position while ignoring other evidence.” Hardman v. Barnhart, 362
F.3d 676, 681 (10th Cir. 2004); see also Haga v. Astrue, 482 F.3d
1205, 	1208 	(10th 	Cir. 	2007) 	(finding 	an 	ALJ 	“is 	not 	entitled 	to
pick and choose through an uncontradicted medical opinion, taking
only the parts that are favorable to a finding of nondisability”).
If she rejects an opinion completely, the ALJ must give “specific,
legitimate 	reasons” 	for 	doing 	so. 	Watkins 	v. 	Barnhart, 	350 	F.3d
1297, 1300 (10th Cir. 2003) (internal citations omitted).
The 	ALJ 	summarized 	Dr. 	James’ 	opinion 	in 	the 	decision,
including 	Claimant’s 	complaints 	that 	she 	slept 	or 	was 	in 	bed
approximately 	18 	hours 	per 	day, 	had 	a 	loss 	of 	energy, 	and 	felt
worthless 	and 	hopeless. 	She 	mentioned 	his 	opinion 	that
“[C]laimant’s activities of daily living and adaptive functioning
was severely impaired for occupational and educational purposes.”
(Tr. 	26). 	After 	summarizing 	Dr. 	James’ 	report, 	the 	ALJ 	found 	his
opinion persuasive with the following explanation:
6:20-cv-00170-JFH-SPS Document 18 Filed in ED/OK on 08/31/21 Page 12 of 14

13
I 	have 	considered 	the 	opinion 	of 	consultative
psychological 	examiner, 	Joseph 	James, 	Psy.D., 	LPC
(Exhibit 3F) who opined that the [C]laimant was capable
of 	engaging 	in 	common 	work/learning-related 	mental
tasks; 	had 	adequate 	ability 	to 	understand, 	adequate
memory, and adequate concentration, and only moderately
impaired 	ability 	to 	socially 	interact 	and 	adapt. 	This
was based on the [C]laimant’s history of poor coping and
social isolation. I find his opinion to be persuasive as
it is consistent with the medical evidence of record.
(Tr. 27).
When 	making 	her 	determination 	of 	how 	persuasive 	she 	viewed
Dr. 	James’ 	opinions, 	however, 	the 	ALJ 	made 	no 	mention 	of 	the
opinion that “Claimant’s capacity to execute tasks of daily living
and 	adaptive 	functioning 	(i.e. 	self-care, 	grooming, 	shopping,
cooking, house cleaning, and money management) [was] estimated to
be severely impaired for occupational and educational purposes[.]”
Moreover, 	she 	provided 	no 	explanation 	in 	the 	decision 	for 	why 	it
was excluded. Although the ALJ does not have to give any “specific
evidentiary 	weight” 	to 	Dr. 	James’ 	opinion, 	she 	cannot 	pick 	and
choose certain opinions that support her analysis and then fail to
explain why she is rejecting others that do not. See Hardman, 362
F.3d at 681. 2 Because Dr. James’ opinion that Claimant’s tasks of
daily living and adaptive functioning are estimated to be severely
impaired for occupation and educational purposes, the ALJ should
2 	The Court cannot make the determination for the ALJ. See Haga,
482 	F.3d 	at 	1207 	(“[T]his 	court 	may 	not 	create 	or 	adopt 	post-hoc
rationalizations 	to 	support 	the 	ALJ’s 	decision 	that 	are 	not 	apparent
from the ALJ’s decision itself.”).
6:20-cv-00170-JFH-SPS Document 18 Filed in ED/OK on 08/31/21 Page 13 of 14

14
properly 	address 	the 	opinion 	on 	remand 	and 	determine 	whether 	it
affects Claimant’s ability to perform work.
Conclusion
The 	decision 	of 	the 	Commissioner 	is 	not 	supported 	by
substantial 	evidence 	and 	the 	correct 	legal 	standards 	were 	not
applied. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge recommends for the above
and 	foregoing 	reasons, 	the 	ruling 	of 	the 	Commissioner 	of 	Social
Security 	Administration 	should 	be 	REVERSED 	and 	the 	case 	REMANDED
for further proceedings. 	The parties are herewith given fourteen
(14) 	days 	from 	the 	date 	of 	the 	service 	of 	this 	Report 	and
Recommendation to file with the Clerk of the court any objections,
with 	supporting 	brief. 	Failure 	to 	object 	to 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation 	within 	fourteen 	(14) 	days 	will 	preclude 	appellate
review 	of 	this 	decision 	by 	the 	District 	Court 	based 	on 	such
findings.
DATED this 31st day of August, 2021.
KIMBERLY E. WEST
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6:20-cv-00170-JFH-SPS Document 18 Filed in ED/OK on 08/31/21 Page 14 of 14