Source: http://ga.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180418_0001277.SGA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-01-24 02:14:33
Document Index: 206432763

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

MELVIN JACKSON, Plaintiff,
Melvin Jackson appeals the decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security denying his application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Social Security Insurance (“SSI”) under the Social Security Act. Upon consideration of the briefs submitted by both parties, the record evidence, and the relevant statutory and case law, the Court REPORTS and RECOMMENDS the Commissioner's final decision be AFFIRMED, this civil action be CLOSED, and a final judgment be ENTERED in favor of the Commissioner.
Plaintiff applied for DIB and SSI on May 12, 2014, alleging a disability onset date of November 27, 2012. Tr. (“R.”), pp. 270-71. Plaintiff was thirty-six years old on his alleged disability onset date and forty years old at the time the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued the decision under consideration. R. 39, 80. Plaintiff initially applied for benefits based on allegations of a back injury. R. 80, 89, 98. Plaintiff completed ninth grade, and prior to his alleged disability, Plaintiff had accrued a relevant work history as a construction laborer, fast food cook, and dishwasher. R. 37, 295, 303-10.
The Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff's applications initially and on reconsideration. R. 80-123, 125-147. Plaintiff requested a hearing before an ALJ, R. 165-66, and the ALJ held a hearing on August 9, 2016. R. 47-79. At the hearing, the ALJ heard testimony from Plaintiff, who was represented by counsel, as well as from Joel Greenberg, a Vocational Expert. Id. On October 26, 2016, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision. R. 22-39.
Applying the sequential process required by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920, the ALJ found:
1. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since November 27, 2012, the alleged onset date (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1571 et seq. and 416.971 et seq.).
2. The claimant has the following severe impairments: asthma, lumbar degenerative disc, obstructive sleep apnea, cervical degenerative disc disease, and major depressive disorder. (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c)).
4. The claimant has the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b), [1] except occasional ladders, ropes and scaffolds; occasional balance; occasional stooping; the individual would be limited to frequent all other posturals [sic]; would need to avoid concentrated exposure to hazards and pulmonary irritants; would be limited to one to two step tasks; off task approximately 5% of the day with low stress work defined as occasional changes and occasional decision making; would need to use a cane for prolonged ambulation and uneven terrain; would need to alternate positions at will and that would occur approximately every 30 minutes; the claimant would be able to stay on task while alternating positions. Thus, the claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1565 and 416.965).
5. Considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and RFC, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform, including ampoule sealer, touch up screener, and final assembler (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1569, 404.1569(a), 416.969, and 416.969(a)). Therefore, the claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from November 27, 2012, through October 26, 2016 (the date of the ALJ's decision) (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g) and 416.920(g)).
R. 26-38.
When the Appeals Council (“AC”) denied Plaintiff's request for review, R. 1-6, the Commissioner's decision became “final” for the purpose of judicial review. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Plaintiff then filed this civil action requesting reversal or remand of that adverse decision.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Plaintiff argues the ALJ improperly weighed Plaintiff&#39;s credibility regarding his subjective complaints in formulating Plaintiff&#39;s RFC because (1) the ALJ did not specify which subjective allegations were contrary to which specific evidence; (2) the medical evidence supported Plaintiff&#39;s subjective limitations; and (2) the ALJ failed to explain how Plaintiff&#39;s minimal daily activities conflicted with his subjective limitations. See generally (Pl.'s Br., doc. no. 10; Pl.'s Rep., doc. no. 13). As explained below, the ALJ sufficiently stated the reasons she did not find Plaintiff's subjective complaints completely credible in formulating ...