Source: http://al.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190320_0000223.NAL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-10-19 20:44:02
Document Index: 441592496

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

FindACase™ | Smith v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner
DANNY JOSEPH SMITH, Plaintiff,
The plaintiff, Danny Joseph Smith, appeals from the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the “Commissioner”) denying his application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”). Smith timely pursued and exhausted his administrative remedies, and the Commissioner's decision is ripe for review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). For the reasons discussed below, the Commissioner's decision is due to be affirmed.
Smith completed the tenth grade, later obtained his GED, and has previously worked as a painter, commercial cleaner, street sweeper, and auction helper. (Tr. at 23, 43, 292). In his application for DIB, Smith claimed he became disabled on January 31, 2013, due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (“COPD”), chronic atrial fibrillation, and high blood pressure. (Id. at 195). After his claims were denied, Smith requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”). (Id. at 215, 222). Following a hearing, the ALJ denied Smith's claims. (Id. at 17-25). Smith was 55 years old when the ALJ issued his decision. (Id. at 25, 195). After the Appeals Council denied review of the ALJ's decision (id. at 9-11), that decision became the final decision of the Commissioner, see Frye v. Massanari, 209 F.Supp.2d 1246, 1251 (N.D. Ala. 2001) (citing Falge v. Apfel, 150 F.3d 1320, 1322 (11th Cir. 1998)). Thereafter, Smith commenced this action. (Doc. 1).[2]
First, the Commissioner must determine whether the claimant is engaged in “substantial gainful activity.” Id. at § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). “Under the first step, the claimant has the burden to show that she is not currently engaged in substantial gainful activity.” Reynolds-Buckley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 457 Fed.Appx. 862, 863 (11th Cir. 2012). If the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity, the Commissioner will determine the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i) and (b). At the first step, the ALJ determined Smith last met the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act on September 30, 2013, and has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since his alleged onset date of January 31, 2013. (Tr. at 19).
At the second step, the ALJ determined Smith has the following severe impairments: right eye blindness, obesity, COPD, and thyroiditis. (Tr. at 19).
If the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments, the Commissioner must then determine whether the impairment meets or equals one of the “Listings” found in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii); see also Id. at § 404.1525-26. The claimant bears the burden of proving his impairment meets or equals one of the Listings. Reynolds-Buckley, 457 Fed. App'x at 863. If the claimant's impairment meets or equals one of the Listings, the Commissioner will determine the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) and (d). At the third step, the ALJ determined Smith does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meet or medically equal the severity of one of the Listings. (Tr. at 19-20).
If the claimant's impairment does not meet or equal one of the Listings, the Commissioner must determine the claimant's residual functional capacity (“RFC”) before proceeding to the fourth step. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e); see also Id. at § 404.1545. A claimant's RFC is the most he can do despite his impairment. See Id. at § 404.1545(a)(1). At the fourth step, the Commissioner will compare her assessment of the claimant's RFC with the physical and mental demands of the claimant's past relevant work. Id. at §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) and (e), 404.1560(b). “Past relevant work is work that [the claimant] [has] done within the past 15 years, that was substantial gainful activity, and that lasted long enough for [the claimant] to learn to do it.” Id. § 404.1560(b)(1). The claimant bears the burden of proving his impairment prevents him from performing his past relevant work. Reynolds-Buckley, 457 Fed.Appx. at 863. If the claimant is capable of performing his past relevant work, the Commissioner will determine the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 404.1560(b)(3).
Before proceeding to the fourth step, the ALJ determined Smith has the RFC to perform light work with the following limitations: he can only ambulate short distances up to 100 yards per instance on flat, hard surfaces but can frequently use bilateral foot controls; he can occasionally climb ramps and stairs but never climb ladders or scaffolds; he can frequently stoop but only occasionally crouch, kneel, and crawl; he must avoid exposure to hazards such as heights and machinery but is able to avoid ordinary workplace hazards such as boxes on the floor, doors left ajar, and approaching people or vehicles; he must avoid all exposure to unprotected heights; he cannot operate a commercial motor vehicle; he must avoid exposure to concentrated dust, fumes, gases, and other pulmonary irritants; he is limited to routine and repetitive tasks and simple work-related decisions; and in addition to normal workday breaks, he will be off task 5% of an eight-hour workday, non- consecutively. (Tr. at 20-23). At the fourth step, the ALJ determined Smith is not capable of performing any of his past relevant work. (Id. at 23).
At the fifth step, considering Smith's age, education, work experience, and RFC, the ALJ determined there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Smith can perform, such as those of a bakery worker, machine tender, and sorter. (Tr. at 23-24). Therefore, the ALJ concluded Smith is not disabled. (Id. at 24-25).
On appeal, Smith argues (1) the ALJ failed to establish the onset date of his disability, (2) he has an impairment that meets Listing 3.02A, (3) the ALJ failed to make a determination regarding his credibility, (4) the ALJ erroneously relied on his inability to quit smoking as evidence of non-compliance with treatment recommendations, (5) the finding he has the RFC to perform light work is not supported by substantial evidence, and (6) the ALJ failed to apply Grid Rule 201.14.
A. Onset Date of Disability
Dr. Anand Iyer provided a medical source opinion after performing a consultative examination of Smith. (Tr. at 448-57). The ALJ found the medical source opinion revealed Smith is unable to perform even sedentary work. (Id. at 22). However, the ALJ determined the opinion could not be used to establish disability because the examination on which it was based was performed in January 2016, more than two years after Smith's date last insured, September 30, 2013. (Id.).
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The ALJ also found the results of spirometry testing show Smith has an impairment that meets Listing 3.02A. (Id. at 22-23, 442-47).[4] However, the ALJ similarly determined the testing could not be used to establish disability because it was performed in January 2016, more than two years after Smith&#39;s date last insured, September 30, 2013. (Id. at 23). The ALJ further determined medical records pre-dating Smith's date last ...