Source: http://md.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190322_0000369.DMD.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-02-19 21:41:33
Document Index: 458679818

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 416', '§ 416', '§ 416', '§ 416', '§ 416', '§ 416', '§ 416', '§ 416', '§ 416']

FindACase™ | Tonette J. v. Berryhill
Tonette J. v. Berryhill
TONETTE J., Plaintiff,
Tonette J. (“Plaintiff”) brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”). Commissioner denied Plaintiff's claim for Supplemental Security Income Benefits (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (“Plaintiff's Motion”), ECF No. 15, and Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (“Commissioner's Motion”), ECF No. 16. The Court has reviewed the motions, related memoranda, and the applicable law. No. hearing is deemed necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md.). For the reasons presented below, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff's Motion and DENIES Commissioner's Motion, but REVERSES and REMANDS the Administrative Law Judge's decision pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings.
On April 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed for SSI under Title XVI, alleging disability beginning November 1, 2012. R. 10, 216-25. Plaintiff alleged disability due to “bi-polar disorder, panic disorder, asthma, agoraphobia; [and a history] of ovarian cancer.” R. 59. Plaintiff's claims were initially denied on July 14, 2014, and upon reconsideration on January 16, 2015. R. 10, 59-64, 66-68. An administrative hearing was held on May 23, 2016, at which Plaintiff was granted an adjournment to obtain representation. R. 10, 28-31. Plaintiff later requested a second adjournment, which was granted on October 24, 2016. R. 10, 170-71. Ultimately, a second hearing was held on February 27, 2017, with Plaintiff's attorney present. R. 10, 178, 183, 201, 204-09. At that hearing, Plaintiff amended her alleged onset date to be May 31, 2016. R. 10, 36. On April 25, 2017, Plaintiff's claim was denied. R. 10-22. Plaintiff sought review by the Appeals Council, which concluded on February 22, 2018, that there was no basis for granting the Request for Review. R. 1-4.
The Commissioner shall find a person legally disabled under Title XVI if she is unable “to do 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 12 months.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.905(a) (2012). The Code of Federal Regulations outlines a five-step process that the Commissioner must follow to determine if a claimant meets this definition:
1) Determine whether the plaintiff is “doing substantial gainful activity.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(i) (2012). If she is doing such activity, she is not disabled. If she is not doing such activity, proceed to step two.
2) Determine whether the plaintiff has a “severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment that meets the duration requirement in § 416.909, or a combination of impairments that is severe and meets the duration requirement.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii) (2012). If she does not have such impairment or combination of impairments, she is not disabled. If she does meet these requirements, proceed to step three.
3) Determine whether the plaintiff has an impairment that “meets or equals one of [the C.F.R.'s] listings in appendix 1 of this subpart and meets the duration requirement.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii) (2012). If she does have such impairment, she is disabled. If she does not, proceed to step four.
4) Determine whether the plaintiff retains the “residual functional capacity” (“RFC”) to perform “past relevant work.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv) (2012). If she can perform such work, she is not disabled. If she cannot, proceed to step five.
5) Determine whether the plaintiff can perform other work, considering her RFC, age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v) (2012). If she can perform other work, she is not disabled. If she cannot, she is disabled.
The RFC is an assessment that represents the most a claimant can still do despite any physical and mental limitations on a “regular and continuing basis.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.945(b)-(c) (2012). In making this assessment, the ALJ must consider all relevant evidence of the claimant's impairments and any related symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.945(a). The ALJ must present a “narrative discussion describing how the evidence supports each conclusion, citing specific medical facts (e.g. laboratory findings) and nonmedical evidence (e.g. daily activities, observations), ” and must then “explain how any material inconsistencies or ambiguities in the evidence in the case record were considered and resolved.” SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184 at *7 (S.S.A. July 2, 1996). “Ultimately, it is the duty of the [ALJ] reviewing the case, and not the responsibility of the courts, to make findings of fact and to resolve conflicts of evidence.” Hays, 907 F.2d at 1456 (citing King v. Califano, 599 F.2d 597, 599 (4th Cir. 1979)).