Source: http://tx.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190926_0002335.ETX.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-12-12 14:34:13
Document Index: 352298734

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 636', '§ 405', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', 'art 404']

FindACase™ | Denise v. Berryhill
Denise v. Berryhill
DARCEL DENISE CHAMBERS
On November 29, 2017, Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit by filing a complaint seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision denying her application for Social Security benefits. The matter was transferred to the undersigned with the consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. For the reasons below, the Commissioner’s final decision is REVERSED and REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further consideration consistent with this opinion.
Plaintiff protectively filed an application for Disability Insurance Benefits and an application for Supplemental Security Income on January 27, 2014, alleging a disability onset date of March 6, 2013. The applications were denied initially and on reconsideration. Plaintiff filed a request for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). An ALJ conducted a hearing on January 14, 2016, and then conducted a supplemental hearing on September 19, 2016. The ALJ issued a decision on October 27, 2016, concluding that Plaintiff was not disabled prior to February 16, 2016, but became disabled on that date and has continued to be disabled through the date of the decision. Plaintiff submitted a request for review of the ALJ’s decision. The Appeals Council denied the request for review on October 6, 2017. As a result, the ALJ’s decision became that of the Commissioner. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on November 29, 2017, seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision.
The procedure for evaluating a mental impairment is set forth in 20 CFR §§ 404.1520a and 416.920a (the “special technique” for assessing mental impairments, supplementing the five-step sequential analysis). First, the ALJ must determine the presence or absence of certain medical findings relevant to the ability to work. 20 CFR §§ 404.1520a(b)(1), 416.920a(b)(1). Second, when the claimant establishes these medical findings, the ALJ must rate the degree of functional loss resulting from the impairment by considering four areas of function: (a) activities of daily living; (b) social functioning; (c) concentration, persistence, or pace; and (d) episodes of decompensation. 20 CFR §§ 404.1520a(c)(2–4), 416.920a(c)(2–4). Third, after rating the degree of loss, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has a severe mental impairment. 20 CFR §§ 404.1520a(d), 416.920a(d). If the ALJ’s assessment is “none” or “mild” in the first three areas of function, and is “none” in the fourth area of function, the claimant’s mental impairment is “not severe, unless the evidence otherwise indicates that there is more than a minimal limitation in [the claimant’s] ability to do basic work activities.” 20 CFR §§ 404.1520a(d)(1), 416.920a(d)(1). Fourth, when a mental impairment is found to be severe, the ALJ must determine if it meets or equals a Listing. 20 CFR §§ 404.1520a(d)(2), 416.920a(d)(2). Finally, if a Listing is not met, the ALJ must then perform a residual functional capacity assessment, and the ALJ’s decision “must incorporate the pertinent findings and conclusions” regarding the claimant’s mental impairment, including “a specific finding as to the degree of limitation in each of the functional areas described in [§§ 404.1520a(c)(3), 416.920a(c)(3)].” 20 CFR §§ 404.1520a(d)(3) and (e)(2), 416.920a(d)(3) and (e)(2).
The ALJ made the following findings in his October 27, 2016 decision:
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date (20 CFR § 404.1571 et seq. and 416.971 et seq.).
3. Since the alleged onset of disability, March 6, 2013, the claimant has had the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease of the spine, degenerative joint disease bilateral knees, affective disorder, and anxiety disorder (20 CFR 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c)).
4. Since the alleged onset date of disability, March 6, 2013, the claimant has not had an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926).
5. After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that prior to February 16, 2016, the date the claimant became disabled, the claimant had the residual functional capacity to perform medium work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(c) and 416.967(c) in that she can lift and/or carry 50 pounds occasionally and 25 pounds frequently; stand and/or walk 6 hours of an 8 hour workday and sit for 6 hours of an 8 hour workday. However, she was limited to performing simple, repetitive tasks.
6. After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that beginning on February 16, 2016, the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) in that she can lift and/or carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; stand and/or walk 6 hours of an 8 hour workday and sit for 6 hours of an 8 hour workday. She is, mentally, limited to performing simple, repetitive tasks.
7. Since March 6, 2013, the claimant has been unable to perform any past relevant work (20 CFR 404.1565 and 416.965).
8. Prior to the established disability onset date, the claimant was an individual of advanced age. The claimant’s age category has not changed since the established disability onset date (20 CFR 404.1563 and 416.963).
9. The claimant has at least a high school education and is able to communicate in English (20 CFR ...