Source: http://al.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190614_0000471.SAL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-12-11 19:30:04
Document Index: 623193120

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 405', '§ 401', '§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 405', 'art, 355']

FindACase™ | Laskey v. Berryhill
Laskey v. Berryhill
GENE T. LASKEY, Plaintiff,
Plaintiff Gene T. Laskey brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”) denying his application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401, et seq. Upon consideration of the parties' briefs (Docs. 16, 20) and those portions of the administrative record (Doc. 13) (hereinafter cited as “(R. [page number(s) in lower-right corner of transcript])”) relevant to the issues raised, and having held oral argument, the Court finds that the Commissioner's final decision is due to be AFFIRMED under sentence four of § 405(g).[1]
Laskey filed an application for a period of disability and DIB with the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) on January 28, 2015, alleging disability beginning June 30, 2012, later amended to September 24, 2014.[2] After his application was initially denied, Laskey requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) with the SSA's Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, which was held on March 24, 2017. On June 30, 2017, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on Laskey's application, finding him not disabled under the Social Security Act and thus not entitled to benefits. (See R. 7 - 21).
The Commissioner's decision on Laskey's application became final when the Appeals Council for the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review denied his request for review of the ALJ's decision on February 26, 2018. (R. 1 - 5). Laskey subsequently filed this action under § 405(g) for judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“Any individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of notice of such decision or within such further time as the Commissioner of Social Security may allow.”); Ingram v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 496 F.3d 1253, 1262 (11th Cir. 2007) (“The settled law of this Circuit is that a court may review, under sentence four of section 405(g), a denial of review by the Appeals Council.”).
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If, in Steps One through Four of the five-step evaluation, a claimant proves that he or she has a qualifying disability and cannot do his or her past relevant work, it then becomes the Commissioner&#39;s burden, at Step Five, to prove that the claimant is capable-given his or her age, education, and work history-of engaging in another kind of substantial gainful employment that exists in the national economy. Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224, 1228 (11th Cir. 1999); Sryock v. Heckler, 764 F.2d 834, 836 (11th Cir. 1985). Finally, although the &ldquo;claimant bears the burden of demonstrating the inability to return to [his or] her past relevant work, the Commissioner of Social Security has an obligation to develop a full and fair record.&rdquo; Shnorr v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 578, 581 (11th Cir. 1987). See also Ellison v. Barnhart, 355 F.3d 1272, 1276 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (“It is well-established that the ALJ has a basic duty to develop a full and fair record. Nevertheless, the claimant bears the burden of proving that he is disabled, and, consequently, he is responsible for producing evidence in support of his claim.” (citations omitted)). “This is an onerous task, as the ALJ ...