Shelton v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 13 and affirming the decision of the Acting Commissioner. Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 9/22/2015. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
KRISTIN SHELTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-14-575-M

ORDER
On August 24, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge Charles B. Goodwin issued a Report
and Recommendation in this action in which plaintiff seeks judicial review of the final decision
of defendant Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration (“Acting Commissioner”),
denying plaintiff’s applications for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social
Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-434, and for supplemental security income under Title XVI of
the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1383f. The Magistrate Judge recommended the
Acting Commissioner’s decision in this matter be affirmed. The parties were advised of their
right to object to the Report and Recommendation by September 7, 2015. Plaintiff has timely
filed her objections.
In her objection, plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge erred in finding that the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) committed harmless error when
the ALJ continued[ed] past step two and, in evaluating the
claimant’s RFC1 and making subsequent determinations at steps
three, four and five, consider[ed] the combined effect of all
limitations caused by all of the claimant’s impairments whether
severe or nonsevere.
1

Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”)

Plf.’s Obj. at 3 (citing R&R at 6). Plaintiff specifically contends that the Magistrate Judge erred
because all of plaintiff’s functional limitations were not in the RFC. Further, plaintiff contends
that, pursuant to Jaramillo v. Colvin, 576 F. App’x 870 (10th Cir. 2014), the ALJ was required to
use specific qualifying terms related to work-related mental function in his dispositive
hypothetical to the Vocational Expert (“VE”) and in the RFC findings.
Having carefully reviewed this matter de novo, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge
did not err when he found that it was harmless error for the ALJ not to consider plaintiff’s
anxiety disorder. The Magistrate Judge found, and the Court agrees, that the record did not
reflect that plaintiff’s anxiety disorder met the requirement for a cognizable severe or nonsevere
medically determinable impairment. Further, the Court finds that the ALJ did not have to use
specific qualifying terms related to work-related mental function in his hypothetical to the VE, or
in the RFC findings, since the ALJ found that plaintiff’s mental impairments did not meet or
medically equal the severity of the impairments listed in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix
1.
Accordingly, the Court:
(1)

ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [docket no. 13] issued by the
Magistrate Judge on August 24, 2015, and

(2)

AFFIRMS the decision of the Acting Commissioner.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of September, 2015.