Source: http://al.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190313_0000202.NAL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-07-04 10:05:51
Document Index: 733490043

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 404', '§ 416', '§ 416', '§ 416']

FindACase™ | Gaddison v. Berryhill
Gaddison v. Berryhill
BRITTNEY LASHAE GADDISON, Plaintiff,
Brittney Gaddison brings this action pursuant to Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking review of the Administrative Law Judge's denial of disability insurance benefits, which has become the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”). For the reasons explained below, the court affirms the decision.
Gaddison filed her application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) on July 24, 2014 asserting that she suffered from a disability beginning on March 1, 2013, which she later amended to June 27, 2014, due to bipolar disorder. R. 19, 24, 98, 167. After the SSA denied her application, Gaddison requested a formal hearing before an ALJ. R. 95, 107, 118. Ultimately, the ALJ issued a decision finding that Gaddison was not disabled. R. 37. The Appeals Council affirmed, rendering the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. R. 1. Gaddison was 17 years old on the date of her application and 18 years old on the date of the Commissioner's final decision. R. 19, 178. Gaddison filed this action pursuant to § 405(g) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Doc. 13.
For applicants who have attained age 18, determination of disability under the Act requires a five step analysis. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)-(f); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. Specifically, the Commissioner must determine, in sequence:
(3) whether the impairment meets or is medically equivalent to one listed by the Secretary;
(5) whether the claimant is unable to perform any work in the national economy, based on his residual functional capacity.
McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026, 1030 (11th Cir. 1986). “An affirmative answer to any of the above questions leads either to the next question, or, on steps three and five, to a finding of disability. A negative answer to any question, other than step three, leads to a determination of ‘not disabled.'” Id. at 1030 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)-(f)). “Once a finding is made that a claimant cannot return to prior work, the burden shifts to the Secretary to show other work the claimant can do.” Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1559 (11th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted).
For applicants under age 18, determination of disability under the Act requires a three step analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(a). Specifically, the Commissioner must determine in sequence:
(1) whether the claimant is working;
(2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment; and
(3) whether the impairment meets or equals one listed by the Secretary.
Parks ex rel. D.P. v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 783 F.3d 847, 850 (11th Cir. 2015). In determining whether an impairment equals a severe impairment, the ALJ must assess the claimant on six domains:
(3) interacting and relating with ...