Holdell v. Berryhill

Filing 20

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: re: 18 Findings and Recommendations on Case re: 1 Complaint filed by Laura E. Holdell. For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Plaintiff's objection is overruled. The Court hereby ADOPTS the FCR as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court. It is therefore ORDERED that the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED. (Ordered by Judge Reed C. O'Connor on 2/1/2018) (trt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WICHITA FALLS DIVISION

LAURA E. HOLDELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 7:17-cv-00038-O-BP

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation
(“FCR”) (ECF No. 18) in this case. The FCR recommended that this Court affirm the
Commissioner’s decision that Plaintiff is not disabled. Plaintiff filed an objection (ECF No. 19).
The Court reviewed de novo those portions of the FCR to which Plaintiff made her objection. For
the following reasons, Plaintiff’s objection is overruled, and the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate
Judge’s FCR as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court.
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s disability began on February 1, 1998. FCR 1, ECF No. 18. On February 1, 2013,

the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the “Commissioner”) determined that
Plaintiff was no longer disabled. Id. On October 29, 2013, Plaintiff requested a hearing. Id. at 2.
On February 5, 2015, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) held a hearing. Id. At the hearing an
impartial vocational expert (“VE”) testified that a hypothetical worker who fit Plaintiff’s
description would be able to find a job, and offered three examples from the Dictionary of
Occupational Titles (the “DOT”): Electronics Worker, Riveting Machine Operator II, and Wire

Stripper. Id. at 2–3, 6. The VE also testified that other people similarly situated to Plaintiff would
be capable of working as a hotel housekeeper. Id. at 6. On July 31, 2015, the ALJ decided that
Plaintiff was not disabled. Id. at 2. The ALJ conducted a five-step analysis and determined inter
alia that Plaintiff was capable of performing jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national
economy. Id. On February 1, 2017, the Social Security Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request
for review, making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision. Id. at 3. On October 19,
2017, the United States Magistrate Judge issued an FCR recommending that this Court affirm the
Commissioner’s decision. See generally id.
II.

LEGAL STANDARDS
To determine whether a claimant is disabled and thus entitled to disability benefits, the

Commissioner employs a five-step sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). The
fifth step requires the Commissioner to show that there is “substantial work in the national
economy that the claimant can perform.” Audler v. Astrue, 501 F.3d 446, 448 (5th Cir. 2007).
This Court’s review of the Commissioner’s decision is limited to deciding whether the
Commissioner applied the correct legal standards and whether substantial evidence in the record
supports the decision. Audler, 501 F.3d at 447. “‘Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as
a responsible mind might accept to support a conclusion. It is more than a mere scintilla and less
than a preponderance. A finding of no substantial evidence is appropriate only if no credible
evidentiary choices or medical findings support the decision.’” Boyd v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 698, 704
(5th Cir. 2001) (quoting Harris v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 413, 417 (5th Cir. 2000)). The Court may neither
reweigh the evidence in the record nor substitute its judgment for the Commissioner’s, but it will
carefully scrutinize the record to determine if substantial evidence is present. Hollis v. Bowen, 837
F.2d 1378, 1383 (5th Cir. 1988). “Conflicts in the evidence are for the [Commissioner] and not the

2

courts to resolve.” Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Brown v. Apfel,
192 F.3d 492, 496 (5th Cir. 1999)).
VE testimony is not only adequate evidence to support the Commissioner’s decision, it is
ideal. The Fifth Circuit has “consistently held”:
[O]nce the ALJ determines that a claimant suffers from a [disability] . . . the
Secretary must produce ‘expert vocational testimony or other similar evidence’
to establish that jobs exist in the national economy that the applicant can
perform. The value of a vocational expert is that he is familiar with the specific
requirements of a particular occupation, including working conditions and the
attributes and skills needed. A vocational expert is able to compare all the
unique requirements of a specified job with the particular ailments a claimant
suffers in order to reach a reasoned conclusion whether the claimant can
perform the specific job.
Fields v. Bowen, 805 F.2d 1168, 1170 (5th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
III.

ANALYSIS
In his FCR, the Magistrate Judge found that the VE’s testimony was substantial evidence

supporting the ALJ’s decision. FCR 7, ECF No. 18. Plaintiff “specifically objects to the Magistrate
Judge’s finding to the effect that the testimony of the vocational expert provided substantial
evidence to support the ALJ’s decision of non-disability.” Obj. 1, ECF No. 19. The Court overrules
this objection. The VE offered unrebutted testimony that someone similarly situated to Plaintiff
would be able to find multiple jobs described in the DOT. See FCR at 2–3, 6, ECF No. 18. This is
substantial evidence that supports the ALJ’s finding that there is substantial work in the national
economy that the claimant can perform. Cf. Boyd, 239 F.3d at 704; Fields, 805 F.2d at 1170.
VI.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s objection is overruled. The

Court hereby ADOPTS the FCR as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court. It is therefore
ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED on this 1st day of February, 2018.

3

_____________________________________
Reed O’Connor
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE