Source: http://al.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190130_0000081.NAL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-08-23 10:18:09
Document Index: 639700925

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

FindACase™ | French v. Berryhill
TIMOTHY W. FRENCH, Plaintiff,
The plaintiff, Timothy W. French, appeals from the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”)[1] denying his application for a period of disability and Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”). Mr. French timely pursued and exhausted his administrative remedies and the decision of the Commissioner is ripe for review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). The parties have consented to the exercise of dispositive jurisdiction by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc. 8).
The plaintiff was 44 years old on the alleged disability onset date. (Tr. at 27). His past work experience includes employment as a truck driver. (Tr. at 27). The plaintiff claims that he became disabled on August 21, 2013, due to chronic pancreatitis, arsenic poisoning, and “Gillians [sic] Barre Syndrome.” (Tr. at 152).
The fourth step requires a determination of whether the claimant's impairments prevent him from returning to past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant can still do his past relevant work, the claimant is not disabled and the evaluation stops. Id. If the claimant cannot do past relevant work, then the analysis proceeds to the fifth step. Id. Step five requires the court to consider the claimant's RFC, as well as the claimant's age, education, and past work experience, in order to determine if he or she can do other work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). If the claimant can do other work, the claimant is not disabled. Id. The burden is on the Commissioner to demonstrate that other jobs exist which the claimant can perform; once that burden is met, the claimant must prove his inability to perform those jobs in order to be found disabled. Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224, 1228 (11th Cir. 1999).
Applying the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ found that the plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since his alleged disability onset date of December 11, 2014. (Tr. at 19). According to the ALJ, the plaintiff has the following impairments that are considered “severe, ” based on the requirements set forth in the regulations: “chronic pancreatitis, gastroesophageal reflux disease, obesity, major depressive disorder, and panic disorder.” Id. The ALJ found that the plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals any of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. Id. at 20. The ALJ found the plaintiff to have a “mild limitation in understanding, remembering, or applying information, mild limitation in interacting with others, moderate limitation in concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace, and mild limitation in adapting or managing oneself.” (Tr. at 20-1). The ALJ determined that the plaintiff has the residual functional capacity to perform work at a light level of exertion as defined in 20 CFR § 404.1567(b) with additional limitations. (Tr. at 23). The ALJ further elaborated:
…[T]he claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b) except that he can occasionally balance, stoop, climb ramps, and stairs, and push/pull with the lower extremities bilaterally. He should not have exposure to hazards. He can understand, remember, and carry out simple instructions and attend to them for two-hour periods.
(Tr. at 23)
According to the ALJ, the plaintiff is unable to perform any of his past relevant work and has “at least a high school education and is able to communicate in English” as those terms are defined by the regulations. (Tr. at 27). She determined that “[t]ransferability of job skills is not material to the determination of disability because using the Medical-Vocational Rules as a framework supports a finding that the claimant is ‘not disabled,' whether or not the claimant has transferable job skills.” Id. However, because she also determined that he could not perform the full range of light duty, she received the testimony of a vocational expert to determine whether there are jobs in the national and local economies the claimant could perform. Id. Even though the plaintiff is limited to light work, the ALJ determined that there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy that he is capable of performing, such as marker, cleaner, and router. (Tr. at 28). The ALJ concluded his findings by stating that Plaintiff “has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, since December 11, 2014, the alleged onset date of disability.” Id.
Mr. French argues that the ALJ's decision was erroneous and should be reversed and remanded because the ALJ failed to properly consider his testimony about the intensity, frequency, and duration of his pain and other subjective complaints. (Doc. 13, p. 11). The Commissioner, on the other hand, argues that the ALJ's subjective complaint analysis is supported by substantial evidence in the ...