Source: http://tn.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180320_0000175.WTN.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 13:13:34+00:00

Document:
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, Defendant.
TU M. PHAM, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Before the court is plaintiff Evelyn Card's appeal from a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (“Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381 et seq. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 10.) For the following reasons, the Commissioner's decision is reversed and the action is remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
to lift and/or carry twenty pounds occasionally, ten pounds frequently and to stand, walk and/or sit six hours in an eight-hour workday, not requiring concentrated exposure to pulmonary irritants and temperature extremes. From a mental standpoint, she could understand and remember simple and low-level tasks with customary breaks. She could interact appropriately with supervisors and coworkers and interact infrequently with the general public. Finally, she could adapt to infrequent changes in a routine setting.
She reported that she washes dishes twice a day, cleans the kitchen and bathroom once a week and does laundry weekly. She cooks “a lot.” She drives her mother to doctor appointments and runs errands. She does the grocery shopping once a week and takes care of her own finances, and the finances of her mother. She is the caregiver for her mother, and she stated that the biggest reason she could not work was because she was taking care of her mother.
Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a claimant may obtain judicial review of any final decision made by the Commissioner after a hearing to which he or she was a party. “The court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Judicial review of the Commissioner's decision is limited to whether there is substantial evidence to support the decision and whether the Commissioner used the proper legal criteria in making the decision. Id.; Winn v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 615 F. App'x 315, 320 (6th Cir. 2015); Cole v. Astrue, 661 F.3d 931, 937 (6th Cir. 2011); Rogers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla of evidence but less than a preponderance, and is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Kirk v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 667 F.2d 524, 535 (6th Cir. 1981) (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)).

References: § 636
 § 405
 § 405
 § 405
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.