Source: http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180328_0000455.WMI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:42:06+00:00

Document:
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration (Commissioner) which denied his claim for supplement security income (SSI).
Plaintiff alleged a disability onset date of November 29, 2012. PageID.191. Plaintiff identified his disabling conditions as postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (“POTS”) and Aspergers. PageID.184. Prior to applying for SSI, plaintiff completed the 12th grade. PageID.185. He has no work history. PageID.185. An administrative law judge (ALJ) reviewed plaintiff's claim de novo and entered a written decision denying benefits on January 28, 2016. PageID.37-48. This decision, which was later approved by the Appeals Council, has become the final decision of the Commissioner and is now before the Court for review.
This Court's review of the Commissioner's decision is typically focused on determining whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); McKnight v. Sullivan, 927 F.2d 241 (6th Cir. 1990). “Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla of evidence but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Cutlip v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 25 F.3d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1994). A determination of substantiality of the evidence must be based upon the record taken as a whole. Young v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 925 F.2d 146 (6th Cir. 1990).
The scope of this review is limited to an examination of the record only. This Court does not review the evidence de novo, make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence. Brainard v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 889 F.2d 679, 681 (6th Cir. 1989). The fact that the record also contains evidence which would have supported a different conclusion does not undermine the Commissioner's decision so long as there is substantial support for that decision in the record. Willbanks v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 847 F.2d 301, 303 (6th Cir. 1988). Even if the reviewing court would resolve the dispute differently, the Commissioner's decision must stand if it is supported by substantial evidence. Young, 925 F.2d at 147.
The Social Security Act requires the Secretary to follow a “five-step sequential process” for claims of disability. First, plaintiff must demonstrate that she is not currently engaged in “substantial gainful activity” at the time she seeks disability benefits. Second, plaintiff must show that she suffers from a “severe impairment” in order to warrant a finding of disability. A “severe impairment” is one which “significantly limits . . . physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” Third, if plaintiff is not performing substantial gainful activity, has a severe impairment that is expected to last for at least twelve months, and the impairment meets a listed impairment, plaintiff is presumed to be disabled regardless of age, education or work experience. Fourth, if the plaintiff's impairment does not prevent her from doing her past relevant work, plaintiff is not disabled. For the fifth and final step, even if the plaintiff's impairment does prevent her from doing her past relevant work, if other work exists in the national economy that plaintiff can perform, plaintiff is not disabled.
Heston v. Commissioner of Social Security, 245 F.3d 528, 534 (6th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).
The claimant bears the burden of proving the existence and severity of limitations caused by her impairments and the fact that she is precluded from performing her past relevant work through step four. Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security, 336 F.3d 469, 474 (6th Cir. 2003). However, at step five of the inquiry, “the burden shifts to the Commissioner to identify a significant number of jobs in the economy that accommodate the claimant's residual functional capacity (determined at step four) and vocational profile.” Id. If it is determined that a claimant is or is not disabled at any point in the evaluation process, further review is not necessary. Mullis v. Bowen, 861 F.2d 991, 993 (6th Cir. 1988).
“The federal court's standard of review for SSI cases mirrors the standard applied in social security disability cases.” D'Angelo v. Commissioner of Social Security, 475 F.Supp.2d 716, 719 (W.D. Mich. 2007). “The proper inquiry in an application for SSI benefits is whether the plaintiff was disabled on or after her application date.” Casey v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 987 F.2d 1230, 1233 (6th Cir. 1993).
Plaintiff's claim failed at the fifth step of the evaluation. At the first step, the ALJ found that plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since his application date of March 4, 2014. PageID.39. At the second step, the ALJ found that plaintiff had the following severe impairments: Asperger's syndrome, autonomic dysfunction, and chronic fatigue. Id. At the third step, the ALJ found that plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or equaled the requirements of the Listing of Impairments in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. PageID.40.
[C]laimant has the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(a) with the following nonexertional limitations. The claimant is limited to simple work, with occasional public contact, and to no fast-paced work.
PageID.42. The ALJ also found that plaintiff has no past relevant work. PageID.46.
At the fifth step, the ALJ determined that plaintiff could perform a significant number of unskilled jobs at the sedentary exertional level in the national economy. PageID.47.
Specifically, the ALJ found that plaintiff could perform the requirements of sedentary and unskilled occupations in the region (the State of Michigan) as follows: semi-conductor bonder (1, 480 jobs); document preparer (113, 000 jobs); and table worker (22, 000 jobs). PageID.47. Accordingly, the ALJ determined that plaintiff has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from March 4, 2014 (the date the application was filed) through January 28, 2016 (the date of the decision). PageID.47-48.

References: § 405
 § 405
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.