Source: http://tn.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180228_0000194.MTN.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 13:19:25+00:00

Document:
In light of the entire record in this case, I suggest that substantial evidence does not support the Commissioner's determination that Plaintiff is not disabled. Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 19), be GRANTED, and that this case be REMANDED under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and by Administrative Order Number 24, entered on January 23, 2018, this case was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for the purpose of reviewing a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff Jody Scott Roller's claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. The matter is currently before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 19).
On February 20, 2013, Plaintiff filed an application for DIB alleging a disability onset date of June 30, 2012. (Tr. 180-83). The Commissioner denied his claim. (Tr. 67-95). Plaintiff then requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), which occurred on March 10, 2015, before ALJ Elizabeth P. Neuhoff. (Tr. 30-66). The ALJ issued a decision on May 15, 2015, finding Plaintiff not disabled. (Tr. 12-28). On November 4, 2016, the Appeals Council denied review, (Tr. 1-6), and Plaintiff filed for judicial review of that final decision on January 5, 2017. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff filed the instant Motion on May 31, 2017, (Doc. 19), and the Commissioner filed a Response on June 26, 2017, (Doc. 20), to which Plaintiff replied, (Doc. 21).
The district court has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's final administrative decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The district court's review is restricted solely to determining whether the “Commissioner has failed to apply the correct legal standard or has made findings of fact unsupported by substantial evidence in the record.” Sullivan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 595 F App'x. 502, 506 (6th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). 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.” Rogers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Court must examine the administrative record as a whole, and may consider any evidence in the record, regardless of whether it has been cited by the ALJ. See Walker v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 884 F.2d 241, 245 (6th Cir. 1989). The Court will not “try the case de novo, nor resolve conflicts in the evidence, nor decide questions of credibility.” Cutlip v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 25 F.3d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1994). If the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence, “it must be affirmed even if the reviewing court would decide the matter differently and even if substantial evidence also supports the opposite conclusion.” Id. at 286 (internal citations omitted).
(ii) At the second step, we consider the medical severity of your impairment(s). If you do not have a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment that meets the duration requirement . . . or a combination of impairments that is severe and meets the duration requirement, we will find that you are not disabled.
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; see also Heston v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 245 F.3d 528, 534 (6th Cir. 2001). “Through step four, the claimant bears the burden of proving the existence and severity of limitations caused by [his or] her impairments and the fact that she is precluded from performing [his or] her past relevant work.” Jones v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 336 F.3d 469, 474 (6th Cir. 2003). The burden transfers to the Commissioner if the analysis reaches the fifth step without a finding that the claimant is not disabled. Combs v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 459 F.3d 640, 643 (6th Cir. 2006). At the fifth step, the Commissioner is required to show that “other jobs in significant numbers exist in the national economy that [the claimant] could perform given [his or] her RFC [residual functional capacity] and considering relevant vocational factors.” Rogers, 486 F.3d at 241 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(v), (g)).
Under the authority of the Social Security Act, the SSA has promulgated regulations that provide for the payment of disabled child's insurance benefits if the claimant is at least eighteen years old and has a disability that began before age twenty-two (20 C.F.R. 404.350(a) (5) (2013). A claimant must establish a medically determinable physical or mental impairment (expected to last at least twelve months or result in death) that rendered her unable to engage in substantial gainful activity. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). The regulations provide a five-step sequential evaluation for evaluating disability claims. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.
with lifting/carrying 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; standing/walking/sitting 6 hours total each; no work around unprotected heights; able to understand, remember and perform simple tasks and instructions; able to interact appropriately with co-workers and supervisors and infrequently with the general public; and able to adapt to change in the work setting.
(Tr. 19). At Step Four, the ALJ found Plaintiff incapable of performing his past relevant work. (Tr. 23). But proceeding to Step Five, the ALJ determined that there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform. (Tr. 23-24).

References: § 636
 § 401
 § 405
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 423
 § 404