Source: http://ct.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190327_0000293.DCT.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-08-19 00:25:58
Document Index: 701062575

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 404', '§ 404', 'art 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404']

JAMES LAURENCE SMITH, Plaintiff,
On or about November 21, 2013, the plaintiff filed an application for SSDI benefits claiming that he has been disabled since November 1, 2011, due to migraine headaches and depression. (Doc. No. 16 (Certified Transcript of Administrative Proceedings, dated April 14, 2018 [“Tr.”]) 74, 93). The Commissioner denied the plaintiff's application initially and upon reconsideration. (Tr. 74-91, 93-109). On December 22, 2014, the plaintiff requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge [“ALJ”] (Tr. 121-22). The plaintiff filed an application for SSI on December 21, 2015. (Tr. 200-208). On May 12, 2016, a hearing was held before ALJ Alexander Peter Borré, at which the plaintiff and a vocational expert, Renee B. Jubrey, testified. (Tr. 43-73; see Tr. 19-42, 145-71, 285-87). On June 14, 2016, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision denying the plaintiff's claim for benefits. (Tr. 19-42). On August 4, 2016, the plaintiff requested review of the hearing decision (Tr. 182-83), and on October 27, 2017, the Appeals Council denied the plaintiff's request for review, thereby rendering the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. (Tr. 1-5).
The plaintiff filed his complaint in this pending action on December 28, 2017. (Doc. No. 1). On March 13, 2018, the parties consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge, and the case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Joan G. Margolis. (Doc. No. 12). The case was transferred to this Magistrate Judge on May 1, 2018. (Doc. No. 15). On May 8, 2018, the defendant filed her Answer and Certified Administrative Transcript, dated April 4, 2018. (Doc. No. 16). On July 9, 2018, the plaintiff filed his Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner (Doc. No. 18), with a stipulation of facts (Doc. No. 18-1), brief in support (Doc. No. 18-2 [Pl.'s Mem.]), and accompanying exhibits (Doc. Nos. 18-3-18-6).[2] On September 5, 2018, the defendant filed her Motion to Affirm the Decision of the Commissioner (Doc. No. 21), with brief in support. (Doc. No. 21-1 [Def.'s Mem.]).
For the reasons stated below, the plaintiff's Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner (Doc. No. 18) is GRANTED, and the defendant's Motion to Affirm (Doc. No. 21) is DENIED.
The Court presumes the parties' familiarity with the plaintiff's medical history, which is thoroughly discussed in the Joint Stipulation of Facts (Doc. No. 18-2). Though the Court has reviewed the entirety of the medical record, it cites only the portions of the record that are necessary to explain this decision.
Following the five-step evaluation process, [4] the ALJ found that the plaintiff's date last insured was December 31, 2014, and that the plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since his alleged onset date of November 1, 2011. (Tr. 24, citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1571 et seq., and 416.971, et seq.). The ALJ concluded that the plaintiff had the following severe impairments: migraines, asthma, obesity, and depression.[5] (Tr. 24, citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c)). At step three, the ALJ concluded that the plaintiff did not have an impairment or a combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (Tr. 21, citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925, and 416.926). The ALJ found that the plaintiff had the residual functional capacity [“RFC”] to perform medium work, as defined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a), except that he was “limited to simple, repetitive tasks in an environment requiring no more than occasional public contact”; “must avoid concentrated exposure to dusts, gases, fumes, and odors”; could tolerate “moderate noise”; could never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; could not tolerate exposure to hazards; could occasionally climb ramps and stairs; and could occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. (Tr. 28). At step four, the ALJ concluded that the plaintiff was unable to perform any past relevant work. (Tr. 33, citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1565 and 416.965). At step five, after considering the plaintiff's age, education, work experience, and RFC, the ALJ concluded that there were significant numbers of jobs in the national economy that the plaintiff could perform. (Tr. 35, citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1569, 404.1569(a), 416.969, and 416.969(a)). Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that the plaintiff was not under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, at any time from the alleged onset date of November 1, 2011, through the date of his decision.[6] (Tr. 31, citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g) and 416.920(g)).
In this appeal, the plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in several respects. First, the plaintiff argues that the ALJ “[m]isconstrued the [e]vidence” regarding the plaintiff's migraine headaches. (Pl.'s Mem. at 1-9). Second, the plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to develop the record. (Pl.'s Mem. at 9-16). Third, the plaintiff argues that the ALJ's analysis at steps two and three of the sequential evaluation process was “deficient.” (Pl.'s Mem. at 17-20). Fourth, the plaintiff claims that the ALJ's step five analysis was “defective.” (Pl.'s Mem. at 20-26). Finally, the plaintiff maintains that the ALJ failed to address adequately the plaintiff's subjective ...