Source: http://ct.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180309_0000264.DCT.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 09:00:11+00:00

Document:
Plaintiff Ann Barnes (“plaintiff”), brings this appeal under §205(g) of the Social Security Act (the “Act”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §405(g), seeking review of a final decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the “Commissioner” or “defendant”) denying her application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under the Act. Plaintiff has moved to reverse the decision of the Commissioner, or in the alternative, for remand. [Doc. #14]. Defendant has filed a cross-motion for an order affirming the decision of the Commissioner. [Doc. #15].
For the reasons set forth below, defendant's Motion for an Order Affirming the Decision of the Commissioner [Doc. #15] is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion for Order Reversing the Decision of the Commissioner or in the Alternative Motion for Remand for a Hearing [Doc. #14] is GRANTED, to the extent plaintiff seeks a remand for further administrative proceedings.
Plaintiff filed concurrent applications for DIB and SSI on June 14, 2013, alleging disability beginning May 1, 2012. See Certified Transcript of the Administrative Record, compiled on August 19, 2016, (hereinafter “Tr.”) 212-26. Plaintiff's application was denied initially on September 11, 2013, see Tr. 127-35, and upon reconsideration on November 14, 2013. See Tr. 137-44.
On October 6, 2014, plaintiff, accompanied and represented by attorney Olia Ylener, appeared and testified at a hearing before Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Lisa Groenveld-Meijer. See Tr. 36-82. Vocational Expert (“VE”) Faith A. Johnson also appeared and testified by telephone at this hearing. See Tr. 73-81, 195-96. On November 5, 2014, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision. See Tr. 15-35. On May 6, 2016, the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review, thereby making the ALJ's November 5, 2014, decision the final decision of the Commissioner. See Tr. 1-4. The case is now ripe for review under 42 U.S.C. §405(g).
3. The ALJ failed to properly determine plaintiff's Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”); and 4. The ALJ erred at step five of the sequential evaluation.
See generally Doc. #14-1 at 12-20. As set forth below, the Court concludes that the ALJ's RFC determination is not supported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ erred in her consideration of plaintiff's intellectual disability.
It is important to note that in reviewing the ALJ's decision, this Court's role is not to start from scratch. “In reviewing a final decision of the SSA, this Court is limited to determining whether the SSA's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence in the record and were based on a correct legal standard.” Talavera v. Astrue, 697 F.3d 145, 151 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Lamay v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 562 F.3d 503, 507 (2d Cir. 2009)).
To be considered disabled under the Act and therefore entitled to benefits, plaintiff must demonstrate that she is unable to work after a date specified “by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. §423(d)(1)(A). Such impairment or impairments must be “of such severity that [s]he is not only unable to do [her] previous work but cannot, considering [her] age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy.” 42 U.S.C. §423(d)(2)(A)(alterations added); 20 C.F.R. §§404.1520(c), 416.920(c) (requiring that the impairment “significantly limit ... physical or mental ability to do basic work activities” to be considered “severe” (alterations added)).

References: §205
 §405
 §405
 v. 
 v. 
 §423
 §423