Source: http://nm.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180212_0000299.DNM.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-09-23 05:22:37
Document Index: 36954682

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 401', '§ 1381', '§ 636', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404']

KRISTIN A. HOWARD, Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REVERSE OR REMAND
Plaintiff seeks review of the Commissioner's determination that she is not entitled to disability benefits under Title II or Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-434, §§ 1381-1383f. With the consent of the parties to conduct dispositive proceedings in this matter, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Fed.R.Civ.P. 73(b), the Court has considered Plaintiff's Motion to Reverse or Remand Administrative Agency Decision and Memorandum in Support, filed June 6, 2017 (Doc. 19), the Commissioner's response in opposition, filed August 4, 2017 (Doc. 20), and Plaintiff's reply, filed August 21, 2017 (Doc. 21). Having so considered, the Court FINDS and CONCLUDES that Plaintiff's request to reverse and remand for payment of benefits is not well-taken and should be denied. The Court further FINDS and CONCLUDES that Plaintiff's alternative request to remand for rehearing should be granted as specified below.
On June 24, 2013, Plaintiff filed an application for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income, alleging that she had been disabled since May 13, 2012, due to deep vein thrombosis in left leg, pulmonary emboli, difficulty walking, difficulty sitting in chair, difficulty standing for long periods, and circulation damage in left leg. AR 65, 71. On October 18, 2013, it was determined that Plaintiff was not disabled and her claim was denied. AR 77, 78. This determination was affirmed on February 13, 2014, AR 97, 98, and a subsequent hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”), held on July 14, 2015, again ended in a denial. AR 22-32. The ALJ's decision became final when, on November 29, 2016, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review. AR 1-4. See Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 106-07 (2000) (explaining that if the Council denies a request for a review, the ALJ's opinion becomes the final decision). See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.900(a)(1)-(5).
When evaluating a disability claim under this standard, the ALJ employs a five-step sequential process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.[1] In the first four steps, the claimant must prove that he or she (1) is not engaged in any substantial gainful activity; (2) has a severe physical or mental impairment, or combination of impairments, that meets the twelve month duration requirement; (3) has an impairment, or combination thereof, that meets or equals a listing in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, App. 1; and (4) is unable to engage in past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(iv). If the disability claim survives step four, the burden shifts to the ALJ to prove, at step five, that the claimant is able to adjust to other jobs presently available in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). See also Wilson v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 1136, 1139 (10th Cir. 2010).