Source: http://in.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20171219_0001521.SIN.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-05-20 23:14:15
Document Index: 687943999

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 636', '§ 405', '§ 423', '§ 423', '§ 404', 'art, 357']

MICHAEL MARTIN, Plaintiff,
This matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) for a report and recommendation as to its appropriate disposition. As addressed below, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Judge REVERSE AND REMAND the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration that plaintiff Michael Martin is not disabled.
Mr. Martin applied on June 13, 2013, for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) under Title II of the Social Security Act, alleging that he has been disabled since April 1, 2013. Acting for the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration following a hearing on June 17, 2015, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Mr. Martin is not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review of the ALJ's decision on December 1, 2016, rendering the ALJ's decision for the Commissioner final. Mr. Martin timely filed this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for review of the Commissioner's decision.
The court will first describe the legal framework for analyzing disability claims and the court's standard of review, and then address Mr. Martin's specific assertions of error.
To prove disability, a claimant must show he is unable to “engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). Mr. Martin is disabled if his impairments are of such severity that he is not able to perform the work he previously engaged in and, if based on his age, education, and work experience, he cannot engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A). The Social Security Administration (SSA) has implemented these statutory standards by, in part, prescribing a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.
The ALJ is required to articulate a minimal, but legitimate, justification for his decision to accept or reject specific evidence of a disability. Scheck v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 697, 700 (7th Cir. 2004). The ALJ need not address every piece of evidence in his decision, but she cannot ignore a line of evidence that undermines the conclusions he made, and she must trace the path of his reasoning and connect the evidence to her findings and conclusions. Arnett v. Astrue, 676 F.3d 586, 592 (7thCir. 2012); Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 872 (7th Cir. 2000).
Mr. Martin was born in 1960 and was 55 years old at the time of the administrative hearing in 2015. Mr. Martin and a ...