Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Arroyo v. Berryhill

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, El Paso Division

November 29, 2017

ROBERT ARROYO, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          LEON SCHYDLOWER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Robert Arroyo appeals the denial of his application for disability insurance benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The parties consent to my determination of the case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Appendix C to the Local Court Rules for the Western District of Texas. I REVERSE and REMAND the Commissioner's decision denying Romero's application.

         I. Facts and Proceedings

         Arroyo alleges he became disabled on January 15, 2014 because of depression, osteoarthritis, sleep apnea, and hearing problems.[1] An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) held a hearing on June 21, 2016[2] and heard testimony from Arroyo, who was represented by counsel, and from a vocational expert. In an opinion dated July 5, 2016, the ALJ determined that Arroyo was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.[3] The Appeals Council denied his request for review, making the decision of the ALJ the final decision of the Commissioner.[4]

         II. Discussion

         A. Legal Standards

         Judicial review of the Commissioner's decision is limited to two inquiries: 1) whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole; and 2) whether the Commissioner applied the proper legal standards. Perez v. Barnhart, 415 F.3d 457, 461 (5th Cir. 2005); Masterson v. Barnhart, 309 F.3d 267, 272 (5th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence Ais more than a mere scintilla, and less than a preponderance.@ Masterson, 309 F.3d at 272. The Commissioner's findings will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence. Id.

         In evaluating a disability claim, the Commissioner must follow a five-step sequential process to determine whether: (1) the claimant is presently working; (2) the claimant has a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment; (3) the claimant's impairment meets or equals an impairment listed in the appendix to the regulations; (4) the impairment prevents the claimant from doing past relevant work; and (5) the claimant can perform other relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; Boyd v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 698, 704-05 (5th Cir. 2001).

         Courts utilize four elements of proof to determine whether there is substantial evidence of disability: (1) objective medical facts; (2) diagnoses and opinions of treating and examining physicians; (3) the claimant's subjective evidence of pain and disability; and (4) the claimant's age, education, and work history. Perez, 415 F.3d at 462. A court cannot, however, reweigh the evidence or try the issues de novo. Cook v. Heckler, 750 F.2d 391, 392 (5th Cir. 1985). The Commissioner, not the courts, must resolve conflicts in the evidence. See Patton v. Schweiker, 697 F.2d 590, 592 (5th Cir. 1983).

         B. The ALJ's Findings

         In this case, the ALJ found that Arroyo's severe impairments include morbid obesity, spinal disorders, degenerative joint disease in his knee, and depressive and anxiety disorders.[5]None of Arroyo's impairments, however, were severe enough to meet or equal an impairment listed in the appendix to the regulations.[6] The ALJ found that Romero can still do “sedentary work”[7] with certain mental and physical limitations.[8] He determined that Arroyo can no longer perform his old job working on a ship, but using vocational expert testimony determined that there are other jobs in the national economy that he can still do.[9] Accordingly, he found Arroyo not disabled and not entitled to disability insurance benefits.[10]

         C. VA Disability

         The ALJ noted that Arroyo has a 100% disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”), but gave it “little weight.”[11] In so doing, he found,

[w]hile the disability determinations of other governmental agencies are entitled to consideration, they are not entitled to any particular weight in determining disability for Social Security purposes (Social Security Ruling 06-3p). In this case, the undersigned notes that the Veterans Affairs' finding is not based on Agency policy ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.