Source: http://nj.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20181030_0003034.DNJ.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-02-21 08:31:29
Document Index: 702301088

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 405', '§ 401', '§ 1382', '§ 1382', '§ 404', 'art 404']

FindACase™ | Reed v. Commissioner of Social Security
NANCY L. REED, Plaintiff,
RICHARD LOWELL On behalf of Plaintiff
KATIE M. GAUGHAN On behalf of Defendant
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), to review the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, denying Plaintiff's application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. § 401, et seq. The issue before the Court is whether the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in finding that there was “substantial evidence” that Plaintiff was not disabled at any time since her alleged onset date of disability, which Plaintiff initially claimed was June 28, 2004, but subsequently amended to April 2, 2008. For the reasons stated below, this Court will affirm that decision.
On August 17, 2011, Plaintiff, Nancy L. Reed, protectively filed an application for DIB, initially alleging that she became disabled on June 28, 2004, but she later amended her alleged onset date to April 2, 2008. Plaintiff claims that she is no longer able to work in her past employment as a legal secretary because she suffers from various impairments, including degenerative disc disease of the lumbosacral and cervical spine, sleep apnea, peripheral neuropathy, and urinary incontinence.
Plaintiff's initial claim was denied on December 12, 2011. After her request for reconsideration was denied on April 11, 2012, Plaintiff requested a hearing before an ALJ, which was held on July 2, 2013. At the hearing, Plaintiff amended her alleged onset date of disability to April 2, 2008. On August 14, 2013, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision. Pursuant to Plaintiff's Request for Review of Hearing Decision to the Appeals Council on March 26, 2015, the Appeals Council remanded the case to the ALJ for further review of the Plaintiff's residual functional capacity (“RFC”). A second hearing was held on July 9, 2015. On August 31, 2015, the ALJ issued a second unfavorable decision. Plaintiff's Request for Review of Hearing Decision was denied by the Appeals Council on October 5, 2016, making the ALJ's August 31, 2015 decision final. Plaintiff brings this civil action for review of the Commissioner's decision.
The Commissioner “must adequately explain in the record his reasons for rejecting or discrediting competent evidence.” Ogden v. Bowen, 677 F.Supp. 273, 278 (M.D. Pa. 1987) (citing Brewster v. Heckler, 786 F.2d 581 (3d Cir. 1986)). The Third Circuit has held that an “ALJ must review all pertinent medical evidence and explain his conciliations and rejections.” Burnett v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 220 F.3d 112, 122 (3d Cir. 2000). Similarly, an ALJ must also consider and weigh all of the non-medical evidence before him. Id.(citing Van Horn v. Schweiker, 717 F.2d 871, 873 (3d Cir.1983)); Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700, 707 (3d Cir. 1981).
The Social Security Act defines “disability” for purposes of an entitlement to a period of disability and disability insurance benefits as the inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death, or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months. See 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). Under this definition, a Plaintiff qualifies as disabled only if his physical or mental impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to perform his past relevant work, but cannot, given his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other type of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy, regardless of whether such work exists in the immediate area in which he lives, or whether a specific job vacancy exists for him, or whether he would be hired if he applied for work. 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(B) (emphasis added).
The Commissioner has promulgated regulations[1] for determining disability that require application of a five-step sequential analysis. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. This five-step process is summarized as follows:
1. If the claimant currently is engaged in substantial gainful employment, he will be found “not disabled.”
2. If the claimant does not suffer from a “severe impairment, ” he will be found “not disabled.”
3. If the severe impairment meets or equals a listed impairment in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 and has lasted or is expected to last for a continuous period of at least twelve months, the claimant will be found “disabled.”
4. If the claimant can still perform work he has done in the past (“past relevant work”) despite the severe impairment, he will be found “not disabled.”
5. Finally, the Commissioner will consider the claimant's ability to perform work (“residual functional capacity”), age, education, and past work experience to determine whether or not he is capable of performing other work which exists in the national economy. If he is incapable, he will be found ...