Source: http://nh.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20140819_0000488.DNH.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-06-05 16:51:44
Document Index: 46229971

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 405', '§ 423', '§ 1381', '§ 423', '§ 1382', 'art. 276', '§ 404']

FindACase™ | Hebert v. Colvin
Melissa Jean Hebert, Claimant
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant Opinion No. 2014 DNH 166
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), claimant, Melissa Hebert, moves to reverse or vacate the Acting Commissioner’s decision denying her applications for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 423, and Supplemental Security Income Benefits under Title XVI, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1383c (collectively, the “Act”). The Acting Commissioner objects and moves for an order affirming her decision.
In 2009, claimant filed applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income, alleging that she had been disabled since November 11, 2008. Those applications were denied and claimant requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”).
In November of 2011, claimant, her attorney, and an impartial vocational expert appeared before an ALJ, who considered claimant’s applications de novo. The following month, the ALJ issued his written decision, concluding that claimant was not disabled, as that term is defined in the Act, at any time prior to the date of his decision. Claimant then sought review of the ALJ’s decision by the Appeals Council. On January 9, 2013, the request was denied.
Accordingly, the ALJ’s denial of claimant’s applications for benefits became the final decision of the Commissioner, subject to judicial review. Subsequently, claimant filed a timely action in this court, asserting that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. She then filed a “Motion for an Order Reversing Decision of the Commissioner” (document no. 9). In response, the Acting Commissioner filed a “Motion for Order Affirming the Decision of the Commissioner” (document no. 14). Those motions are pending.
Pursuant to this court’s Local Rule 9.1, the parties have submitted a statement of stipulated facts which, because it is part of the court’s record (document no. 13), need not be recounted in this opinion. Those facts relevant to the disposition of this matter are discussed as appropriate.
II. The Parties’ Respective Burdens.
An individual seeking Social Security disability benefits is disabled under the Act if she 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 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). See also 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3). The Act places a heavy initial burden on the claimant to establish the existence of a disabling impairment. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146-47 (1987); Santiago v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 944 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1991). To satisfy that burden, the claimant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that her impairment prevents her from performing her former type of work. See Gray v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 369, 371 (1st Cir. 1985); Paone v. Schweiker, 530 F.Supp. 808, 810-11 (D. Mass. 1982). If the claimant demonstrates an inability to perform her previous work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that there are other jobs in the national economy that she can perform, in light of her age, education, and prior work experience. See Seavey v. Barnhart. 276 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2001). See also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512(f) and 416.912(f).
In assessing a disability claim, the Commissioner considers both objective and subjective factors, including: (1) objective medical facts; (2) the claimant’s subjective claims of pain and disability, as supported by the testimony of the claimant or other witnesses; and (3) the claimant’s educational background, age, and work experience. See, e.g., Avery v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 797 F.2d 19, 23 (1st Cir. 1986); Goodermote v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 690 F.2d 5, 6 (1st Cir. 1982). Ultimately, a claimant is disabled only if her: