Source: http://al.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190911_0000698.SAL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-11-12 23:47:18
Document Index: 351058952

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 405', '§ 401', '§ 1381', '§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 1383', '§ 1383', '§ 405']

TRACY DARNELL HILL, Plaintiff,
Plaintiff Tracy Darnell Hill brought this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”) denying his applications for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401, et seq., and for supplemental security income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381, et seq.[2] Upon consideration of the parties' briefs (Docs. 11, 14) and those portions of the administrative record (Doc. 10) (hereinafter cited as “(R. [page number(s) in lower-right corner of transcript])”) relevant to the issues raised, the Court finds that the Commissioner's final decision is due to be REVERSED and REMANDED under sentence four of § 405(g).[3]
Hill filed applications for a period of disability, DIB, and SSI with the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) on December 12, 2014. After his applications were initially denied, Hill requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) with the SSA's Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, which was held on December 13, 2016. On July 13, 2017, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on Hill's applications, finding him not disabled under the Social Security Act and thus not entitled to benefits. (See R. 13 - 24).
The Commissioner's decision on Hill's applications became final when the Appeals Council for the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review denied his request for review of the ALJ's decision on May 21, 2018. (R. 1 - 6). Hill subsequently brought this action under § 405(g) and § 1383(c)(3) for judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision. See 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3) (“The final determination of the Commissioner of Social Security after a hearing [for SSI benefits] shall be subject to judicial review as provided in section 405(g) of this title to the same extent as the Commissioner's final determinations under section 405 of this title.”); 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“Any individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of notice of such decision or within such further time as the Commissioner of Social Security may allow.”); Ingram v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 496 F.3d 1253, 1262 (11th Cir. 2007) (“The settled law of this Circuit is that a court may review, under sentence four of section 405(g), a denial of review by the Appeals Council.”).
At Step One, the ALJ determined that Hill met the applicable insured status requirements through December 31, 2019, and that he had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged disability onset date of November 15, 2014. (R. 18).[7] At Step Two, the ALJ determined that Hill had the following severe impairments: status post cerebrovascular accident with right hemiparesthesia, headaches, and visual disturbance. (R. 18 - 19). At Step Three, the ALJ found that Hill did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or equaled the severity of a specified impairment in the Listing of Impairments. (R. 19).
At Step Four, [8] the ALJ determined that Hill had the residual functional capacity (RFC) “to perform less than the full range of light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b)[, ]”[9] with the following limitations: Hill “could frequently handle, finger, and feel with the right dominant hand[;] could occasionally push and pull arm controls and leg controls on the right side[;] could occasionally operate foot pedals on the right and frequently stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, balance, and climb ramps or stairs[;] cannot climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds[;] cannot work at unprotected heights[;] could tolerate occasional exposure to dangerous moving machinery and vibrations[;] could occasionally perform fine detail work such as small jewelry repair[; and] could perform simple, routine, and repetitive tasks, but not at a production rate pace.” (R. 19 - 22).
Based on this RFC and the testimony of a vocational expert, [10] the ALJ determined that Hill was unable to perform any past relevant work. (R. 22). At Step Five, after considering additional testimony from the vocational expert, the ALJ found that there exist a significant number of jobs in the national economy that Hill could perform given his RFC, age, education, and work experience. (R. 22 - 23). Thus, the ALJ found that Hill was not disabled under the Social Security Act. (R. 24).
Hill asserts two claims of reversible error, which the undersigned addresses in turn.
In limiting Hill to a reduced range of light work, the RFC included no specific restrictions on standing, walking, lifting, or carrying. Thus, at Step Four, the ALJ necessarily found that Hill could engage in “frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds[, ] and in “standing or walking, off and on, for a total of approximately 6 hours in an 8-hour workday[, ]” “[s]ince frequent lifting or carrying requires being on one's feet up to two-thirds of a workday…” Social Security Ruling (SSR) 83-10, ...