Source: http://al.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190322_0000243.NAL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-08-23 10:15:57
Document Index: 212252261

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 405', '§ 636', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', 'art 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', 'art 404']

FindACase™ | Wiley v. Berryhill
Wiley v. Berryhill
LAWANDA JOHNETTE WILEY, Plaintiff,
The plaintiff, Lawanda Johnette Wiley, appeals from the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”)[1] denying her application for a period of disability and Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”). Wiley timely pursued and exhausted her administrative remedies and the decision of the Commissioner is ripe for review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). The parties have consented to the exercise of dispositive jurisdiction by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc. 16).
The plaintiff was 48 years old on the date of the ALJ's opinion. (Tr. at 20, 102). Her past work experience includes employment as an auto assembler, a forklift operator, an office manager, and a shipping and receiving clerk. (Tr. at 45). The plaintiff claims that she became disabled on January 1, 2014, from right and left shoulder pain, seizure-like activity, and degenerative joint disease in the hips. (Tr. at 56-8).
When evaluating the disability of individuals over the age of eighteen, the regulations prescribe a five-step sequential evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; see also Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001). The first step requires a determination of whether the claimant is “doing substantial gainful activity.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i), 416.920(a)(4)(i). If she is, the claimant is not disabled and the evaluation stops. Id. If is not, the Commissioner next considers the effect of all of the physical and mental impairments combined. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). These impairments must be severe and must meet the durational requirements before a claimant will be found to be disabled. Id. The decision depends on the medical evidence in the record. See Hart v. Finch, 440 F.2d 1340, 1341 (5th Cir. 1971). If the claimant's impairments are not severe, the analysis stops. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). Otherwise, the analysis continues to step three, which is a determination of whether the claimant's impairments meet or equal the severity of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If the claimant's impairments fall within this category, she will be found disabled without further consideration. Id. If they do not, a determination of the claimant's residual functional capacity will be made and the analysis proceeds to the fourth step. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). Residual functional capacity (“RFC”) is an assessment, based on all relevant evidence, of a claimant's remaining ability to do work despite her impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.945(a)(1).
Applying the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ found that the plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since her amended onset date of January 1, 2014. (Tr. at 26). According to the ALJ, the plaintiff has the following impairments that are considered “severe” based on the requirements set forth in the regulations: “status post left shoulder capsular labral reconstruction with left shoulder tendinopathy, bicipital tenosynovitis, mild degenerative joint disease, and adhesive capsulitis; possible degenerative joint disease of the lumbar spine and hips; arthritis; obesity; and hypertension.” Id. He also found that the plaintiff's dyspepsia, overactive bladder, contusion, lumbar strain, ankle sprain, shoulder sprain, menopausal/postmenopausal symptoms, neuropathic leg pain, foot pain, frequent urination, syncope episodes, and depression were non-severe. Id. at 32-4. The ALJ found that the plaintiff's severe and non-severe impairments, separately and in combination, neither meet nor medically equal any of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. Id. at 35. The ALJ found the plaintiff to have no limitation in activities of daily life, no limitation in social functioning, no limitation with regard to concentration, and no episodes of decompensation. (Tr. at 57). The ALJ determined that the plaintiff has the residual functional capacity to perform work at a sedentary level of exertion as defined in 20 C.F.R. 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a). Id. at 37. The ALJ further elaborated:
The claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.2567(a) and 416.967(a) which allows her to sit for six hours out of eight hours, no upper extremity pushing or pulling, no overhead reaching, no climbing, no pushing or pulling with the lower extremities or foot controls, no unrestricted heights, no operation of hazardous machinery, no driving, and she can occasionally stoop and crouch.
(Tr. at 37)
According to the ALJ, the plaintiff is “capable of performing her past relevant work as an office manager as generally performed.” Id. at 44. The ALJ concluded his findings by stating that Plaintiff “has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from January 1, 2014, through the date of this decision.” Id. at 46.