United States District Court, D. Nebraska
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
R. ZWART, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
an action for judicial review of a final decision of the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
(Commissioner) that the plaintiff, Sandra Joy Gentry is not
disabled. Gentry seeks reversal of the decision of Nancy A.
Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration (Commissioner), as she asserts the decision is
not supported by substantial evidence. Filing No. 15. The
Commissioner seeks affirmance of the decision, asserting that
Gentry had a fair hearing and full administrative
consideration in accordance with applicable statutes and
regulations, and the substantial evidence on the record as a
whole supports the Commissioner's decision. Filing No.
filed for Period of Disability and Disability Insurance
benefits on April 30, 2015, alleging disability beginning
September 1, 2014. Filing No. 9-2 at CM/ECF p. 50. The
application was denied on August 17, 2015. Id.
Plaintiff requested reconsideration and that request was
denied on October 7, 2015. Id. Plaintiff requested a
hearing on November 11, 2015. A hearing was held before an
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on July 21, 2017. Id.
October 3, 2017, the ALJ issued a written decision DENYING
Gentry's claim. Plaintiff timely filed a request for
review of the ALJ's decision. The Appeals Council denied
the request on January 29, 2018. Filing No. 9-2 at CM/ECF p.
2-5. Plaintiff timely filed her appeal in this court pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. 405(g), on March 23, 2018. Filing No. 1.
evaluated Gentry's claim through the five-step evaluation
process to determine whether Gentry was disabled under
sections 216(i) and 223(d) of the Social Security Act. As
reflected in his decision, the ALJ made the following
1) The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the
Social Security Act through December 31, 2019.
2) The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful
employment since September 1, 2014, the alleged onset date.
(20 CFR 404.1571 et. seq.).
3) The claimant has the following severe impairments:
depression, anxiety with panic attacks, diabetes mellitus
with neuropathy, hypertension, obesity, degenerative disc
disease of the lumbar spine, osteoarthritis of the right hip,
and bilateral shoulder tendinitis (20 CFR 404.1520(c).
4) The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of
one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR 404, Subpart P,
Appendix 1 (20 CFR 404.1520(d), 404.1525 and 404.1526).
5) The claimant has the residual functional capacity
("RFC") to perform sedentary work as defined in 20
CFR 404.1567(a) except the claimant can engage in no more
than occasional overhead reaching bilaterally; she can engage
in no more than frequent handling bilaterally; and she can
engage in no more than occasional pushing, pulling, or the
operation of foot controls with the lower extremities
bilaterally. Mentally, the claimant would be limited to
unskilled, routine, and repetitive instructions and tasks;
she could tolerate no more than occasional changes in a work
place environment or routine; and she could have no more than
occasional interaction with co-workers, supervisors, or the
6) The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work
(20 CFR 404.1565).
7) The claimant was born on April 29, 1969 and was 45 years
old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-44, on
the alleged disability onset date (20 CFR
8) The claimant has at least a high school education and is
able to communicate in English (20 CFR 404.1564).
9) Transferability of job skills is not material to the
determination of disability because using the
Medical-Vocational Rules as a framework supports a finding
that the claimant is "not disabled," whether or not
the claimant has transferable job skills (See SSR 82-41 and
20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2).
10) Considering the claimant's age, education, work
experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs
that exist in significant numbers in the national economy
that the claimant can perform (20 CFR 404.1569 and
Issues Raised for Judicial Review
requests judicial review of the ALJ's decision, asserting
that the following arguments support her claim for reversal.
1) The ALJ erred by failing to analyze the opinion evidence
in accordance with the regulations, Agency policy, and Eighth
2) The ALJ erred in relying on vocational expert testimony to
fulfill his step 5 burden without properly addressing her
objections memorandum and rebuttal evidence related to the
vocational expert's testimony.
Record and ...