Source: http://ri.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180730_0000114.DRI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 20:14:32+00:00

Document:
Plaintiff Mary K appeals the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying her benefits. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Ms. K's motion to reverse and/or remand and DENIES the Commissioner's motion to affirm.
Ms. K is a fifty-four-year-old divorced woman who lives in her brother's house and receives food stamps for sustenance. She has completed the ninth grade and has not obtained a GED. Since at least 2002, Ms. K did work at a table in the shipping department of a jewelry company. Her onset of disability began in November 2013, when she had to leave work because she would often fall asleep unexpectedly. She also suffers from anxiety and depression.
For many years, Ms. K sought various medical treatments for migraines, depression, anxiety, chronic fatigue, and narcolepsy. She treated with internists, a licensed clinical social worker, a psychologist, and a psychiatrist. Her internist diagnosed her with "chronic fatigue syndrome, depressive disorder, insomnia, malaise and fatigue, [and] narcolepsy." Ms. K reported falling asleep four times or more per day, despite getting a full night's sleep. She would even fall asleep while standing up. She was unable to maintain employment.
Ms. K filed a claim for Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income. The Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") denied her claim determining that Ms. K has no physical or mental impairments that she considered severe at Step 2 of the sequential evaluation. The Appeals Council affirmed the decision and Ms. K appealed to this Court.
A district court's role in reviewing the Commissioner's decision is limited. "The findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive . ..." 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The determination of substantiality must be made upon an evaluation of the record as a whole. The Court "must uphold the Secretary's findings ... if a reasonable mind, reviewing the evidence in the record as a whole, could accept it as adequate to support his conclusion." Rodriguez v. Sec'y of Health & Human Sews., 647 F.2d 218, 222 (1st Cir. 1981). The Supreme Court has defined substantial evidence as "more than a mere scintilla." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quoting Consol Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)).
In reviewing the record, the Court must avoid reinterpreting the evidence or otherwise substituting its own judgment for that of the Secretary. See Colon v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 877 F.2d 148, 153 (1st Cir. 1989). The "resolution of conflicts in the evidence is for the Secretary, not the courts." Irlanda Ortiz v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 955 F.2d 765, 769 (1st Cir. 1991).
[W]e are also bound to interpret the Social Security Act as a program of social insurance on which people can rely to provide for themselves and their dependents. Claimants are the beneficiaries of insured wage earners, not recipients of government gratuities, and are entitled to a broad construction of the Act. In practical terms, when a Social Security Act provision can be reasonably interpreted in favor of one seeking benefits, it should be so construed.
658 F.2d at 243 (citations omitted).

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