McQueen v. Social Security Administration

E.D. Oklahoma

McQueen v. Social Security Administration

DecidedSeptember 19, 2025

Docket6:24-cv-00142

StatusUnknown

This text of McQueen v. Social Security Administration (McQueen v. Social Security Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McQueen v. Social Security Administration, (E.D. Okla. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

LESLIE SUE MCQUEEN, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-24-142-GLJ ) FRANK BISIGNANO,1 ) Commissioner of the Social ) Security Administration, ) ) Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER Claimant Leslie Sue McQueen requests judicial review of a denial of benefits by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). She appeals the Commissioner’s decision and asserts that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in determining she was not disabled. For the reasons discussed below, the Commissioner’s decision is hereby REVERSED and REMANDED. Social Security Law and Standard of Review Disability under the Social Security Act is defined as the “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). A claimant is disabled under the Social Security Act “only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he

1 On May 7, 2025, Frank Bisignano became the Commissioner of Social Security. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Mr. Bisignano is substituted for Michael O’Malley as the Defendant in this action. is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the

national economy[.]” Id. § 423 (d)(2)(A). Social security regulations implement a five- step sequential process to evaluate a disability claim. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920.2 Section 405(g) limits the scope of judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision to two inquiries: whether the decision was supported by substantial evidence and whether correct legal standards were applied. See Hawkins v. Chater, 113 F.3d 1162, 1164 (10th Cir. 1997). Substantial evidence is “‘more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). See also Clifton v. Chater, 79 F.3d 1007, 1009 (10th Cir. 1996). The Court may not reweigh the evidence or substitute its discretion for the Commissioner’s. See Casias v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 933 F.2d 799, 800

(10th Cir. 1991). But the Court must review the record as a whole, and “[t]he substantiality

2 Step one requires the claimant to establish that she is not engaged in substantial gainful activity. Step two requires the claimant to establish that she has a medically severe impairment (or combination of impairments) that significantly limits her ability to do basic work activities. If the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity, or her impairment is not medically severe, disability benefits are denied. If she does have a medically severe impairment, it is measured at step three against the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. If the claimant has a listed (or “medically equivalent”) impairment, she is regarded as disabled and awarded benefits without further inquiry. Otherwise, the evaluation proceeds to step four, where the claimant must show that she lacks the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to return to her past relevant work. At step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show there is significant work in the national economy that the claimant can perform, given her age, education, work experience, and RFC. Disability benefits are denied if the claimant can return to any of her past relevant work or if her RFC does not preclude alternative work. See generally Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-51 (10th Cir. 1988). of evidence must take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight.” Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 488 (1951). See also Casias, 933 F.2d

at 800-01. Claimant’s Background Claimant was born on January 19, 1973, and was 50 years at the time of the ALJ’s decision. (Tr. 40, 47). She has completed the ninth grade and has past relevant work as a receptionist. (Tr. 34, 62-63, 237). Claimant asserts she has been unable to work since March 27, 2021, alleging disability due to due to rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, degenerative

disc disease, carpal tunnel, osteoporosis, neck pain (and surgeries), fibromyalgia, depression, brain fog, and hearing loss in the right ear. (Tr. 236). Procedural History Claimant applied for supplemental security income (SSI) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (the Act). In an October 4, 2023, decision, the ALJ found Claimant

not disabled under the Act. (Tr. 17-34). The Appeals Council subsequently denied review (Tr. 1), making the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1481. The Court has jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3). Decision of the Administrative Law Judge The ALJ made his decision at step four of the sequential evaluation. At step two,

the ALJ found that Claimant had severe impairments of rheumatoid arthritis, cervical and lumbar spinal degenerative disk disease, carpal tunnel syndrome, and right knee trauma, as well as nonsevere fibromyalgia, depression, and PTSD. (Tr. 19-20). Next, he found that Claimant’s impairments did not meet a listing. (Tr. 14). At step four, he found that Claimant retained the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to lift/carry/push/pull ten pounds occasionally and less than ten pounds frequently; sit for six out of eight hours per

day; stand and/or walk a combined two out of eight hours per day; never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, use foot controls with both feet, or reach overhead with both hands; occasionally climb ramps or stairs, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl; and frequently perform tasks such as reaching in other directions, handling, and fingering. (Tr. 22). The ALJ thus found that Claimant can perform her past relevant work as a receptionist. (Tr. 34).

The relevant evidence reflects that in June 2018 Claimant saw Dr. Jason Sparks with symptoms indicative of cubital tunnel syndrome. She had previous imaging showing atypical thoracic spinal hemangiomas. (Tr. 343-344). Claimant next visited Dr. Tim Petingell for electrodiagnostic testing of her extremities that revealed left carpal tunnel syndrome. In July 2018 she returned to Dr. Sparks to review the test results which indicated

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI