Source: http://ky.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180220_0000149.WKY.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-09-22 01:54:45
Document Index: 436120306

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

ADAM WAYNE SUTTON PLAINTIFF
Before the Court is the complaint (DN 1) of Plaintiff Adam Wayne Sutton seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Both the Plaintiff (DN 12) and Defendant (DN 20) have filed a Fact and Law Summary.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73, the parties have consented to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge conducting all further proceedings in this case, including issuance of a memorandum opinion and entry of judgment, with direct review by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in the event an appeal is filed (DN 10). By Order entered June 29, 2017 (DN 11), the parties were notified that oral arguments would not be held unless a written request therefor was filed and granted. No such request was filed.
Plaintiff filed an application for Supplemental Security Income benefits on December 30, 2013 (Tr. 163). Plaintiff alleged that he became disabled on December 1, 2013 (Tr. 177) as a result of White Coat Syndrome, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, social anxieties, high blood pressure, and gum disease (Tr. 182). Administrative Law Judge Mary Lassy conducted a hearing on December 10, 2015 in Paducah, Kentucky (Tr. 35-56). Plaintiff was present and represented by Wendell Holloway, an attorney. Also present and testifying were vocational expert Dr. Stephanie Barnes and medical expert Dr. Tom Wagner.
In a decision dated December 31, 2015, the ALJ evaluated this adult disability claim pursuant to the five-step sequential evaluation process promulgated by the Commissioner (Tr. 18-34). At the first step, the ALJ found Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since December 27, 2013, the protective filing date (Tr. 23). At the second step, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff's history of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, depression, anxiety, and borderline intellectual function are “severe” impairments within the meaning of the regulations (Tr. 23). At the third step, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals one of the listed impairments in Appendix 1 (Tr. 23).
At the fourth step, the ALJ found Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels except "he would need to avoid ladders, ropes, and scaffolds and exposure to hazardous machinery and heights. He can understand, remember, and carry out simple instructions. There should be no complex work. He can sustain attention for simple tasks. There should be no interaction with the general public. He can occasionally interact with supervisors and coworkers. He can adapt to stress in a more object orientated work setting. He would need to avoid strict production work" (Tr. 24). The ALJ determined the Plaintiff has no past relevant work (Tr. 28).
The ALJ proceeded to the fifth step where she considered Plaintiff's residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience as well as testimony from the vocational expert (Tr. 28). The ALJ found that Plaintiff is capable of performing a significant number of jobs that exist in the national economy (Tr. 28-29). Therefore, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff has not been under a “disability, ” as defined in the Social Security Act, from December 27, 2013, through the date of the decision (Tr. 29).
Plaintiff timely filed a request for the Appeals Council to review the ALJ's decision (Tr. 15). The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review of the ALJ's decision (Tr. 1).
As previously mentioned, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review of the ALJ's decision (Tr. 1). At that point, the ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.955(b), 404.981, 422.210(a); see 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) (finality of the Commissioner's decision). Thus, the Court will be reviewing the decision of the ALJ, not the Appeals Council, and the evidence that was in the administrative record when the ALJ rendered the decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); 20 C.F.R. § 404.981; Cline v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 96 F.3d 146, 148 (6th Cir. 1996); Cotton v. Sullivan, 2 F.3d 692, 695-696 (6th Cir. 1993).