Source: http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180319_0000352.WMI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-10-21 21:57:58
Document Index: 495871543

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 405', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 423', 'art 404']

DENEEN ADAMS, Plaintiff,
Hon. Ellen S. Carmody Judge
Plaintiff was 44 years of age on her alleged disability onset date. (PageID.385, 387). She possesses a tenth grade education and worked previously as a nurse's aide, manufacturer helper, institutional cook, and home-care attendant. (PageID.147-48). Plaintiff applied for benefits in early 2014, alleging that she had been disabled since August 8, 2008, due to depression, bi-polar disorder, and chronic back pain. (PageID.385-92, 429). Plaintiff's application was denied, after which time she requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). (PageID.296-383).
On March 5, 2015, Plaintiff appeared before ALJ James Prothro with testimony being offered by Plaintiff and a vocational expert. (PageID.155-221). In a written decision dated June 12, 2015, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was not disabled. (PageID.135-49). The Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ's determination, rendering it the Commissioner's final decision in the matter. (PageID.27-33). Plaintiff subsequently initiated this appeal pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the ALJ's decision.
The social security regulations articulate a five-step sequential process for evaluating disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a-f), 416.920(a-f).[1] If the Commissioner can make a dispositive finding at any point in the review, no further finding is required. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a), 416.920(a). The regulations also provide that if a claimant suffers from a nonexertional impairment as well as an exertional impairment, both are considered in determining her residual functional capacity. See 20 C.F.R.§ 404.1545, 416.945.
The burden of establishing the right to benefits rests squarely on Plaintiff's shoulders, and she can satisfy her burden by demonstrating that her impairments are so severe that she is unable to perform her previous work, and cannot, considering her age, education, and work experience, perform any other substantial gainful employment existing in significant numbers in the national economy. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A); Cohen, 964 F.2d at 528. While the burden of proof shifts to the Commissioner at step five, Plaintiff bears the burden of proof through step four of the procedure, the point at which her residual functioning capacity (RFC) is determined. See Bowen v.Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987); Waltersv.Comm'r of Soc.Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 528 (6th Cir. 1997) (ALJ determines RFC at step four, at which point claimant bears the burden of proof).
The ALJ determined that Plaintiff suffered from: (1) bipolar/depressive disorder; (2) post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); (3) personality disorder; (4) history of cannabis/marijuana abuse; (5) degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine; and (6) left-sided weakness as a residual of a cerebrovascular infarction, severe impairments that whether considered alone or in combination with other impairments, failed to satisfy the requirements of any impairment identified in the Listing of Impairments detailed in 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (PageID.137-40).
With respect to Plaintiff's residual functional capacity (RFC), the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff retained the ability to perform a limited range of light work. (PageID.141). A vocational expert testified that there existed approximately 13, 000 jobs in the state of Michigan which Plaintiff could perform consistent with her RFC. (PageID.216-18). As this constitutes a significant number of jobs, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not ...