Source: http://tn.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170331_0000362.MTN.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-10-19 10:46:20
Document Index: 37904382

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 405', '§ 636', '§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 432', '§ 432', '§ 404', '§ 423']

KIANA L. SMITH,
NANCY BERRYHILL, [1]Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
BARBARA D.HOLMES United States Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) to obtain judicial review of the final decision of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff's claim for a period of disability, Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”), and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”), as provided under Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act (“the Act”). The case is currently pending on Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the administrative record (Docket Entry No. 12), to which Defendant has responded (Docket Entry No. 13). Plaintiff has also filed a subsequent reply to Defendant's response (Docket Entry No. 16). This action is before the undersigned for all further proceedings pursuant to the consent of the parties and referral of the District Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (Docket Entry No. 21).
Upon review of the administrative record as a whole and consideration of the parties' filings, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED, and the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff filed applications for a period of disability, DIB, and SSI on July 7, 2009. See Transcript of the Administrative Record (Docket Entry No. 10) at 55-58.[2] She alleged a disability onset date of May 28, 2009. AR 13, 33. Plaintiff asserted that she was unable to work because of left knee pain. AR 55-58.
Plaintiff's applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration. AR 55-62. Upon her request for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified at a hearing before ALJ Brian Dougherty on August 12, 2011. AR 28. On September 9, 2011, the ALJ denied the claim. AR 10-12. On December 21, 2012, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review of the ALJ's decision (AR 1-3), thereby making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. This civil action was thereafter timely filed and the Court has jurisdiction. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on September 9, 2011. AR 10. Based upon the record, the ALJ made the following enumerated findings:
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since May 28, 2009, the alleged onset date (20 CFR 404.1571 et seq., and 416.971 et seq.).
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: chronic degenerative changes in the left knee and bipolar disorder (20 CFR 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c)).
5. After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to lift and/or carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; stand and/or walk less than 2 hours out of 8 hours; sit 8 hours out of 8 hours; occasionally reach with the right upper extremity; occasionally climb ramp/stairs; never climb ladders or scaffolds, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, or crawl; avoid temperature extremes and vibrations; and tolerate occasional exposure to pulmonary irritants. She requires a cane for ambulation and cannot walk on uneven surfaces. She is restricted to simple tasks, occasional interaction with public, frequent interaction with supervisors and co-workers, and changes should be infrequent and gradual.
7. The claimant, born on October 29, 1977, was 31 years old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the alleged disability onset date (20 CFR 404.1563 and 416.963).
8. The claimant has at least a high school (13 years) education and is able to communicate in English (20 CFR 404.1564 and 416.964).
11. The claimant has not been under a “disability” as defined in the Social Security Act from May 28, 2009, through the date of this decision (20 CFR 404.1520(g) and 416.920(g)).
AR 15-21.
The parties and the ALJ have thoroughly summarized and discussed the medical and testimonial evidence of the administrative record. Accordingly, the Court will therefore discuss those matters only to the extent necessary to analyze the parties' arguments.
The determination of disability under the Act is an administrative decision. The only questions before this Court upon judicial review are: (i) whether the decision of the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence; and (ii) whether the Commissioner made legal errors in the process of reaching the decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971) (adopting and defining substantial evidence standard in context of Social Security cases); Kyle v. Comm'r Soc. Sec., 609 F.3d 847, 854 (6th Cir. 2010). The Commissioner's decision must be affirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence, “even if there is substantial evidence in the record that would have supported an opposite conclusion.” Blakley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Key v. Callahan, 109 F.3d 270, 273 (6th Cir. 1997)); Jones v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 336 F.3d 469, 477 (6th Cir. 2003); Her v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 203 F.3d 388, 389-90 (6th Cir. 1999).
B. Determining Disability at the Administrative Level
The claimant has the ultimate burden of establishing an entitlement to benefits by proving her “inability 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 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 432(d)(1)(A). The asserted impairment(s) must be demonstrated by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 432(d)(3) and 1382c(a)(3)(D); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512(a), (c), and 404.1513(d). “Substantial gainful activity” not only includes previous work performed by the claimant, but also, considering the claimant's age, education, and work experience, any other relevant work that exists in the national economy in significant numbers regardless of whether such work exists in the immediate area in which the claimant lives, or whether a specific job vacancy exists, or whether the claimant would be hired if he applied. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A).
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In the proceedings before the Social Security Administration, the Commissioner must employ a five-step, sequential evaluation process in considering the issue of the claimant&#39;s alleged disability. See Heston v. Comm&#39;r of Soc. Sec., 245 F.3d 528, 534 (6th Cir. 2001); Abbot v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 918, 923 (6th Cir. 1990). First, the claimant must show that she is not engaged in &ldquo;substantial gainful activity&rdquo; at the time disability benefits are sought. Cruse v. Comm&#39;r of Soc. Sec., 502 F.3d 532, 539 (6th Cir. 2007); 20 C.F.R. &sect;&sect; 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). Second, the claimant must show that she suffers from a severe impairment that meets the 12-month durational requirement. 20 C.F.R. &sect;&sect; 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). See also Edwards v. Comm&#39;r of Soc. Sec., 113 F. App&#39;x 83, 85 (6th Cir. 2004). Third, if the claimant has satisfied the first two steps, the claimant is presumed disabled without further inquiry, regardless of age, education or work experience, if the impairment at issue either appears on the regulatory list of impairments that are sufficiently severe as to prevent any gainful employment or equals a listed impairment. Combs v. Comm&#39;r of Soc. Sec., 459 F.3d 640, 643 (6th ...