REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

BARRY A. BRYANT, Magistrate Judge.

Samuel A. Osborne ("Plaintiff") brings this action pursuant to § 205(g) of Title II of the Social Security Act ("The Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2010), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("SSA") denying his application for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB"), Supplemental Security Income ("SSI"), and a period of disability under Titles II and XVI of the Act.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) (2009), the Honorable P. K. Holmes, III referred this case to this Court for the purpose of making a report and recommendation. In accordance with that referral, and after reviewing the arguments in this case, this Court recommends Plaintiff's case be REVERSED AND REMANDED.

1. Background:

Plaintiff protectively filed his disability applications on August 25, 2011. (Tr. 18). In this application, Plaintiff alleges being disabled due to degenerative disc disease, moderate joint disease, canal stenosis, OCD, hypertension, anxiety, depression, and disc protrusions. (Tr. 229). Plaintiff alleged an onset date of May 1, 2011. (Tr. 18). These applications were denied initially and again upon reconsideration. (Tr. 18, 101-109, 114-119).

Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on August 3, 2012. (Tr. 125). This hearing request was granted and Plaintiff's administrative hearing was held on September 30, 2013. (Tr. 55-94). At this hearing, Plaintiff was present and was represented by Davis Duty. Id. Plaintiff and Vocational Expert ("VE") Julie Harvey testified at this hearing. Id. At this hearing, Plaintiff testified he was forty-seven (47) years old, which is defined as a "younger person" under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(c) (2008) (DIB) and 20 C.F.R. § 416.963(c) (2008) (SSI). (Tr. 60). As for his education, Plaintiff testified he had completed the eighth grade (Tr. 62).

On November 27, 2013, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff's application. (Tr. 18-30). In this decision, the ALJ found Plaintiff met the disability insured status requirements of the Act through December 31, 2017. (Tr. 20, Finding 1). The ALJ also found Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity ("SGA") since February 29, 2012. (Tr. 20, Finding 2).

The ALJ then found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease of the thoracic and lumbar spine, low vision, coronary artery disease, angina pectoris, type II diabetes mellitus, obesity, hypertension, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and personality disorder. (Tr. 21, Finding 3). Despite being severe, the ALJ determined those impairments did not meet or medically equal the requirements of any of the Listings of Impairments in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Regulations No. 4 ("Listings"). (Tr. 21, Finding 4).

In this decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints and determined his RFC. (Tr. 22-28, Finding 5). First, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints and found his claimed limitations were not entirely credible. Id. Second, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the RFC to perform sedentary work, except he needed a sit/stand option that allowed for a change of positions at least every 30 minutes; could only occasionally use foot controls bilaterally and could frequently handle, finger, and feel bilaterally; could frequently balance, stoop, and crouch; and could occasionally kneel and climb ramps and stairs, but could never crawl or climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. (Tr. 22-23, Finding 5). The ALJ also found Plaintiff had difficulty reading very small print but could read ordinary newspaper-type print; could not work around unprotected heights and moving mechanical parts; and could not work in environments with temperature extremes. Id. The ALJ further found Plaintiff was limited to simple tasks and simple work-related decisions, and he could have frequent interaction with supervisors, co-workers, and the public; and his time spent off task would be accommodated by normal breaks. Id.

The ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's Past Relevant Work ("PRW"). (Tr. 28, Finding 6). The ALJ found Plaintiff's PRW included work as a cabinet maker and small business owner. Id. The ALJ found Plaintiff was unable to perform his PRW. Id. The ALJ then considered whether Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. (Tr. 28, Finding 10). The VE testified at the administrative hearing on this issue. Id. Based upon that testimony, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform the following occupations: (1) charge account clerk inserter with 30,800 such jobs in the United States and 200 such jobs in Oklahoma; (2) telephone information clerk with 78,250 such jobs in the United States and 850 such jobs in Oklahoma; and (3) food and beverage order clerk with 32,900 such jobs in the United States and 250 such jobs in Oklahoma. Id. Because Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform this other work, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined by the Act, from February 29, 2012 through the date of the decision. (Tr. 29, Finding 11).

Thereafter, Plaintiff requested the Appeals Council's review of the ALJ's unfavorable decision. (Tr. 12). On January 29, 2015, the Appeals Council denied this request for review. (Tr. 1-3). On March 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed the present appeal. ECF No. 1. Both Parties have filed appeal briefs. ECF Nos. 11, 12. This case is now ready for decision.

2. Applicable Law:

In reviewing this case, this Court is required to determine whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2010); Ramirez v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 576, 583 (8th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance of the evidence, but it is enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support the Commissioner's decision. See Johnson v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1145, 1147 (8th Cir. 2001). As long as there is substantial evidence in the record that supports the Commissioner's decision, the Court may not reverse it simply because substantial evidence exists in the record that would have supported a contrary outcome or because the Court would have decided the case differently. See Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2001). If, after reviewing the record, it is possible to draw two inconsistent positions from the evidence and one of those positions represents the findings of the ALJ, the decision of the ALJ must be affirmed. See Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065, 1068 (8th Cir. 2000).

It is well-established that a claimant for Social Security disability benefits has the burden of proving his or her disability by establishing a physical or mental disability that lasted at least one year and that prevents him or her from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. See Cox v. Apfel, 160 F.3d 1203, 1206 (8th Cir. 1998); 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act defines a "physical or mental impairment" as "an impairment that results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques." 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(3), 1382(3)(c). A plaintiff must show that his or her disability, not simply his or her impairment, has lasted for at least twelve consecutive months. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A).

To determine whether the adult claimant suffers from a disability, the Commissioner uses the familiar five-step sequential evaluation. He determines: (1) whether the claimant is presently engaged in a "substantial gainful activity"; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment that significantly limits the claimant's physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities; (3) whether the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals a presumptively disabling impairment listed in the regulations (if so, the claimant is disabled without regard to age, education, and work experience); (4) whether the claimant has the Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) to perform his or her past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant cannot perform the past work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove that there are other jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform. See Cox, 160 F.3d at 1206; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)-(f). The fact finder only considers the plaintiff's age, education, and work experience in light of his or her RFC if the final stage of this analysis is reached. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (2003).

3. Discussion:

In his appeal brief, Plaintiff raises the following arguments for reversal: (1) the ALJ erred by failing to find Plaintiff met a listing; (2) the ALJ erred in his RFC determination; (3) the ALJ erred by failing to fully develop the record; (4) the ALJ erred in assessing his credibility; (5) the ALJ erred in assessing the opinions of his physicians; and (6) the Plaintiff cannot perform the jobs identified by the ALJ. ECF No. 11 at 12-18. Upon review, the Court finds the ALJ improperly evaluated Plaintiff's subjective complaints. Thus, the Court will only evaluate Plaintiff's fourth argument for reversal.

In assessing the credibility of a claimant, the ALJ is required to examine and to apply the five factors from Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984) or from 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and 20 C.F.R. § 416.929.1 See Shultz v. Astrue, 479 F.3d 979, 983 (2007). The factors to consider are as follows: (1) the claimant's daily activities; (2) the duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; (3) the precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; and (5) the functional restrictions. See Polaski, 739 at 1322.

The factors must be analyzed and considered in light of the claimant's subjective complaints of pain. See id. The ALJ is not required to methodically discuss each factor as long as the ALJ acknowledges and examines these factors prior to discounting the claimant's subjective complaints. See Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969, 971-72 (8th Cir. 2000). As long as the ALJ properly applies these five factors and gives several valid reasons for finding that the Plaintiff's subjective complaints are not entirely credible, the ALJ's credibility determination is entitled to deference. See id.; Cox v. Barnhart, 471 F.3d 902, 907 (8th Cir. 2006). The ALJ, however, cannot discount Plaintiff's subjective complaints "solely because the objective medical evidence does not fully support them [the subjective complaints]." Polaski, 739 F.2d at 1322.

When discounting a claimant's complaint of pain, the ALJ must make a specific credibility determination, articulating the reasons for discrediting the testimony, addressing any inconsistencies, and discussing the Polaski factors. See Baker v. Apfel, 159 F.3d 1140, 1144 (8th Cir. 1998). The inability to work without some pain or discomfort is not a sufficient reason to find a Plaintiff disabled within the strict definition of the Act. The issue is not the existence of pain, but whether the pain a Plaintiff experiences precludes the performance of substantial gainful activity. See Thomas v. Sullivan, 928 F.2d 255, 259 (8th Cir. 1991).

In the present action, the ALJ did not perform a Polaski evaluation.2 Instead of evaluating the Polaski factors outlined above and providing valid reasons for discounting Plaintiff's subjective complaints, the ALJ outlined Plaintiff's medical records and then proceeded to discount his subjective complaints because they were not supported by his medical records.

Notably, instead of evaluating the Polaski factors as the ALJ understood he was required to do and instead of stating inconsistencies in the record as required by Polaski, the ALJ stated the following:

(Tr. 24)

The ALJ's decision to discount Plaintiff's subjective complaints because the medical evidence did not support those allegations was entirely improper under Polaski. See Polaski, 739 F.2d at 1322 (recognizing the ALJ cannot discount a claimant's subjective complaints "solely because the objective medical evidence does not fully support them [the subjective complaints]"). Thus, because the ALJ did not comply with the requirements of Polaski, this case must be reversed and remanded.

4. Conclusion:

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that the decision of the ALJ, denying benefits to Plaintiff, is not supported by substantial evidence and recommends that it be REVERSED AND REMANDED.

The Parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The Parties are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990).