Source: http://md.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190926_0001368.DMD.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-02-26 11:11:40
Document Index: 515261357

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 405', '§ 416', '§ 404', '§ 404', 'art, 453', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404']

FindACase™ | Annette D. v. Saul
Annette D. v. Saul
TAMMY ANNETTE D., Plaintiff,
Plaintiff Tammy D. seeks judicial review under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant” or the “Commissioner”) denying her application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and alternative motion for remand (ECF No. 12) and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15).[2] Plaintiff contends that the administrative record does not contain substantial evidence to support the Commissioner’s decision that she is not disabled. No. hearing is necessary. L.R. 105.6. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s alternative motion for remand (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff filed an application for SSI on April 18, 2011, alleging disability beginning on July 15, 2009. R. at 754. The Commissioner denied Plaintiff’s application initially and again on reconsideration, so Plaintiff requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). R. at 754. ALJ Marc Mates held a hearing on April 22, 2014 (R. at 27-49, 754), where Plaintiff and a vocational expert testified, and issued an unfavorable decision on June 5, 2014 (R. at 754, 815-31). On August 13, 2015, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review. R. at 754, 832-35. Plaintiff sought judicial review in this Court (R. at 836-47), which reversed the unfavorable decision and remanded the case on December 21, 2016 (R. at 848-57). The Appeals Council vacated the ALJ’s decision and remanded the case on March 10, 2017. R. at 859.
On October 13, 2017, ALJ Jack Penca held a supplemental hearing where Plaintiff and another VE testified. R. at 770-814. On December 20, 2017, ALJ Penca issued a decision finding Plaintiff not disabled since the application date of April 18, 2011. R. at 751-69. On February 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed exceptions to the decision with the Appeals Council (R. at 749-50), which she withdrew on April 19, 2018 (R. at 742). Because the Appeals Council did not assume jurisdiction of the case, the ALJ’s decision because the Commissioner’s final decision after remand. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1484(d).
On April 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court seeking review of the Commissioner’s decision. Upon the parties’ consent, this case was transferred to a United States Magistrate Judge for final disposition and entry of judgment. The case then was reassigned to the undersigned. The parties have briefed the issues, and the matter is now fully submitted.
Second, if the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, the Commissioner looks to see whether the claimant has a “severe” impairment, i.e., an impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. Pass v. Chater, 65 F.3d 1200, 1203 (4th Cir. 1995); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1521(a), 416.920(c), 416.921(a).[3]
Fourth, if the claimant’s impairment is severe, but it does not meet or equal one of the presumptively disabling impairments, then the Commissioner will assess the claimant’s RFC to determine the claimant’s “ability to meet the physical, mental, sensory, and other requirements” of the claimant’s past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 404.1545(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4)(iv), 416.945(a)(4). RFC is a measurement of the most a claimant can do despite his or her limitations. Hines v. Barnhart, 453 F.3d 559, 562 (4th Cir. 2006); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). The claimant is responsible for providing evidence the Commissioner will use to make a finding as to the claimant’s RFC, but the Commissioner is responsible for developing the claimant’s “complete medical history, including arranging for a consultative examination(s) if necessary, and making every reasonable effort to help [the claimant] get medical reports from [the claimant’s] own medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3). The Commissioner also will consider certain non-medical evidence and other evidence listed in the regulations. See Id . If a claimant retains the RFC to perform past relevant work, then the claimant is not disabled. Id. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv).
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Fifth, if the claimant&rsquo;s RFC as determined in step four will not allow the claimant to perform past relevant work, then the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove that there is other work that the claimant can do, given the claimant&rsquo;s RFC as determined at step four, age, education, and work experience. See Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470, 472-73 (4th Cir. 2012). The Commissioner must prove not only that the claimant&rsquo;s RFC will allow the claimant to make an adjustment to other work, but also that the other work exists in significant numbers in the national economy. See Walls, 296 F.3d at 290; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). If the claimant can make an adjustment to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy, then the Commissioner will find ...