Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170424_0001074.DSC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-06-22 09:02:31
Document Index: 722131798

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', 'art 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', 'art 4', '§ 404']

Scotty M. Horne, Plaintiff,
This case is before the court for a report and recommendation pursuant to Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a) (D.S.C.), concerning the disposition of Social Security cases in this District, and Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(B).[1] The plaintiff brought this action pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 405(g)) to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his claim for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act.
The plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) on March 21, 2012, alleging that he became unable to work on January 15, 2011. The application was denied initially and on reconsideration by the Social Security Administration. On August 14, 2012, the plaintiff requested a hearing. The administrative law judge (“ALJ”), before whom the plaintiff, his attorney, and William W. Stewart, Ph.D., an impartial vocational expert, appeared at a hearing on May 8, 2014, considered the case de novo and, on June 27, 2014, found that the plaintiff was not under a disability as defined in the Social Security Act, as amended. The ALJ's finding became the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security when the Appeals Council denied the plaintiff's request for review on December 16, 2015. The plaintiff then filed this action for judicial review.
(2) The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since January 15, 2011, the alleged onset date (20 C.F.R. § 404.1571 et seq).
(3) The claimant has the following severe impairments: stable ascending aortic aneurism; chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD), complicated by tobacco abuse that is in early remission; depression; anxiety; and rule out personality disorder (20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c)).
(5) After careful consideration of the entire record, I find that the claimant had the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. 404.1567(b) except he is limited to simple, routine tasks that do not require ongoing interaction with the general public or close “team type” interaction with co-workers, do not require reading or writing above a second grade level, and takes place in a low stress environment (defined as not required to make complex decisions at the workplace, not required to meet a rigid production schedule, or to adapt to frequent changes in the workplace) and the claimant is limited to non-confrontational supervisory interaction. Additionally, the claimant is limited to no more than occasional stooping, crouching, kneeling, climbing of stairs and ramps, crawling, and balancing, and no climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. The claimant should also have no concentrated exposure to dusts, fumes, gases, odors, or extremes of humidity, heat, or cold.
(7) The claimant was born on November 26, 1964, and was 46 years old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the alleged disability onset date (20 C.F.R. § 404.1563).
(9) Transferability of job skills is not material to the determination of disability because the Medical-Vocational Rules support a finding that the claimant is “not disabled, ” whether or not claimant has transferable job skills (See SSR 82-41 and 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2).
(10) Considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that claimant can perform (20 C.F.R. § 404.1569 and 404.1569(a)).
(11) The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from January 15, 2011, through the date of this decision (20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g)).
To facilitate a uniform and efficient processing of disability claims, the Social Security Act has by regulation reduced the statutory definition of “disability” to a series of five sequential questions. An examiner must consider whether the claimant (1) is engaged in substantial gainful activity, (2) has a severe impairment, (3) has an impairment that equals an illness contained in the Social Security Administration's Official Listings of Impairments found at 20 C.F.R. Part 4, Subpart P, App. 1, (4) has an impairment that prevents past relevant work, and (5) has an impairment that prevents him from doing substantial gainful employment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). If an individual is found not disabled at any step, further inquiry is unnecessary. Id.
The plaintiff was 46 years old on the alleged disability onset date (January 15, 2011) and 49 years old on the date of the ALJ's decision (June 27, 2014). He has past relevant work experience as a transmission mechanic (Tr. 34).
On April 10, 2011, the plaintiff was hospitalized for an evaluation of his aortic aneurysm. A CT angiogram showed an aortic aneurysm measuring 47 mm with no evidence of dissection (Tr. 267-81).
On July 11, 2011, George Butler, M.D., of Pageland Family Medicine evaluated the plaintiff for followup of chronic medical problems including anxiety and an aortic aneurysm. The plaintiff reported that he had been out of his medications for about a week because they were stolen. The plaintiff admitted to problems staying calm and reported problems with maintaining relationships and outbursts. Dr. Butler discussed medications with the plaintiff and diagnosed aortic aneurysm, currently asymptomatic; anxiety, insomnia, and gastroesophageal ...