Source: http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190417_0000906.WMI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-10-21 20:14:22
Document Index: 628623088

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 405', '§ 636', '§ 405', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 423', 'art 404']

FindACase™ | Archambeau v. Commissioner of Social Security
Archambeau v. Commissioner of Social Security
Richard Archambeau, Jr., Plaintiff,
This is an action pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), to review a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiffs claim for Disability Income Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. Section 405(g) limits the Court to a review of the administrative record, and it provides that if the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence, it shall be conclusive. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), authorizing United States Magistrate Judges to submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition of Social Security appeals, the undersigned recommends that the Commissioner's decision be affirmed.
Plaintiff was 38 years of age on his alleged disability onset date. (ECF No. 8-7, PageID.264). He successfully completed high school and worked previously as a hi-lo driver and production line welder. (ECF No. 8-2, PageID.72). Plaintiff applied for benefits on August 25, 2015, alleging that he had been disabled since December 11, 2103, due to: (1) herniated discs, nerve damage, and numbness in his back; (2) torn cartilage in his knees; (3) floating bone spurs in his neck; (4) loss of fluid in his shoulder joints; (5) carpal tunnel syndrome; (6) inflammatory arthritis; (7) hypertension; (8) high cholesterol; (9) migraines; (10) vertigo; (11) depression; and (12) anxiety. (PageID.264-72, 301).
Plaintiffs applications were denied, after which time he requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). (PageID. 128-262). On August 17, 2017, Plaintiff appeared before ALJ Cynthia Harmon, with testimony being offered by Plaintiff and a vocational expert. (ECF No. 8-3, PageID.81-126). In a written decision dated January 4, 2018, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was not disabled. (PageID.43-74). The Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ's determination, rendering it the Commissioner's final decision in the matter. (PageID.29-33). Plaintiff subsequently initiated this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the ALJ's decision.
The social security regulations articulate a five-step sequential process for evaluating disability. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a-f), 416.920(a-f). If the Commissioner can make a dispositive finding at any point in the review, no further finding is required. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a). The regulations also provide that, if a claimant suffers from a nonexertional impairment as well as an exertional impairment, both are considered in determining his residual functional capacity. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945.
The burden of establishing the right to benefits rests squarely on Plaintiffs shoulders, and he can satisfy his burden by demonstrating that his impairments are so severe that he is unable to perform his previous work, and cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, perform any other substantial gainful employment existing in significant numbers in the national economy. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A); Cohen, 964 F.2d at 528. While the burden of proof shifts to the Commissioner at step five of the sequential evaluation process, Plaintiff bears the burden of proof through step four of the procedure, the point at which his residual functioning capacity (RFC) is determined. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987); Walters v. Commissioner of Social Security, 127 F.3d 525, 528 (6th Cir. 1997).
The ALJ determined that Plaintiff suffers from: (1) degenerative disc disease; (2) bilateral carpal and cubital tunnel syndrome; (3) degenerative joint disease of the left acromioclavicular joint with left shoulder rotator cuff tendonitis; and (4) left knee chondromalacia and synovitis with effusion, severe impairments that whether considered alone or in combination with other impairments, failed to satisfy the requirements of any impairment identified in the Listing of Impairments detailed in 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (PageID.46-57).
With respect to Plaintiffs residual functional capacity, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff retained the ability to perform light work subject to the following limitations: (1) he can frequently, but not repetitively, push or pull with the left upper extremity; (2) he can occasionally climb ramps and stairs, but can never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; (3) he can occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl; (4) he can frequently, but not repetitively, reach overhead with his left upper extremity; (5) he can frequently, but not ...