Source: http://co.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20140903_0001890.DCO.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-04-27 09:10:14
Document Index: 334762140

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1381', '§ 636', '§ 416', '§ 405', '§ 1382', '§ 1382', '§ 423']

| Lapp v. Colvin
Lapp v. Colvin
ALMA ARLENE LAPP, Plaintiff,v.CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
This civil action comes before the court pursuant to Title XVI of the Social Security Act (the "Act"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1383f, for review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying Plaintiff, Ms. Lapp's, application for Supplemental Security Income benefits ("SSI"). Pursuant to the Order of Reference dated March 6, 2014, this civil action was referred to the Magistrate Judge "for all purposes" pursuant to the Pilot Program to Implement the Direct Assignment of Civil Cases to Full Time Magistrate Judges and Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). ( See Doc. # 28). The court has reviewed the Complaint (filed August 13, 2013) (Doc. # 1), Defendant's Answer (filed October 22, 2013) (Doc. # 14), Plaintiff's Opening Brief (filed December 23, 2013) (Doc. # 19), Defendant's Response Brief (filed January 1, 2014) (Doc. # 20), Plaintiff's Reply Brief (filed February 4, 2014) (Doc. # 21), the entire case file, the administrative record, and the applicable law and is sufficiently advised in the premises.
Ms. Lapp filed an application for SSI under Title XVI of the Act on March 30, 2010. ( See Complaint (Doc. # 1) at 2 of 9).[1] She alleged that she became disabled on September 4, 2001. ( See id.; Record (Doc. # 15-6 at 8 of 44)).[2] She claimed disability based on depression, PTSD, anxiety, memory, right shoulder/arm nerve damage, avascular necrosis-right hip, pain, brain tumor and breast cancer. ( See Doc. # 1-1 at 2 of 5). The claim was denied at the initial determination stage on September 17, 2010 and Ms. Lapp requested a hearing. ( See Exhibits A, B to Complaint (Docs. # 1-1, # 1-2)). Administrative Law Judge George W. Merchant ("ALJ") held a hearing on November 3, 2011. ( See Transcript (Doc. # 15-2 at 29-60 of 88)). Ms. Lapp was represented by counsel and testified at the hearing. ( See id.; Appointment of Represent-ative, Record (Doc. # 15-4) at 5 of 64). Mr. Kenneth A. Lister testified at the hearing as a vocational expert ("VE"). ( See id. ). The ALJ issued his written decision on November 15, 2011, concluding that Ms. Lapp had no past relevant work and was not disabled under the Act because based on her "age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, " she "is capable of making a successful adjustment to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy." ( See Exhibit C to Complaint (Doc. # 1-3) at 14 of 18).
On January 4, 2012, Ms. Lapp requested review of the ALJ's decision. ( See Exhibit D to Complaint (Doc. # 1-4)). The Appeals Council denied Ms. Lapp's request for review on June 14, 2013. ( See Exhibit E to Complaint (Doc. # 1-5)). The decision of the ALJ then became the final decision of the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 416.1481; Neilson v. Sullivan, 992 F.2d 1118, 1119 (10th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). Ms. Lapp filed this action on August 13, 2013. The court has jurisdiction to review the final decision of the Commissioner. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
III. Ms. Lapp's Challenge to ALJ's Decision
An individual's eligibility for SSI payments shall be determined on the basis of the individual's income, resources, and other relevant characteristics. 42 U.S.C. § 1382(c)(1). In addition to being financially eligible, the individual must file an application for SSI and be under a "disability" as defined in the Act. 42 U.S.C. § 1382. An individual "shall be determined to be under a disability only if [her] physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that [she] is not only unable to do [her] previous work but cannot, considering [her] age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy." 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(2)(A); 1382c(a)(3)(B).
If a conclusion of "not disabled" results, this means that a significant number of jobs exist in the national economy for which the claimant is still exertionally capable of performing. However, ... [t]he decision maker must then consider all relevant facts to determine whether the claimant's work capability is ...