Garrett v. Social Security Administration

Filing 18

ORDER adopting the 16 Recommendation as supplemented and overruling Garrett's 17 objections. The Commissioner's decision is affirmed. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 7/27/2017. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION

GAYLON D. GARRETT
v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 4:16-cv-150-DPM

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Commissioner

DEFENDANT

ORDER

On de nova review, the Court adopts the recommendation, Ng 16, as
supplemented, and overrules Garrett's objections, Ng 17.
The supplement. Garrett says there's an irreconcilable conflict between
her residual functional capacity limitation and her ability to work as a cashier.
In assessing Garrett's capacity, the Administrative Law Judge limited her to
work with "the complexity of one to two-step tasks that is learned and
performed by rote, with few variables and little judgment ... [.]" Tr. at 14.
Then at step 5, the ALJ concluded Garrett can perform her past relevant work
as a cashier. That job is categorized as requiring reasoning level three.
Garrett says that reasoning at this level is logically inconsistent with her
capacity. But the reasoning level is the upper limit across all jobs in the
cashier category, not a requirement for every cashier job. Moore v. Astrue, 623

F.3d 599, 604 (8th Cir. 2010). In other words, not all cashier jobs involve
reasoning at level three. Ibid.
But even if there were a conflict between Garrett's capacity and work as
a cashier, the denial of benefits was proper. The ALJ found that Garrett can
perform other jobs -with lower reasoning levels - that are available in
significant numbers in the national economy. Clay v. Barnhart, 417 F.3d 922,
931 (8th Cir. 2005). Substantial evidence supports this finding.
The Commissioner's decision is therefore affirmed.
So Ordered.
{/

D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge

-2-