Source: http://nm.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190717_0001585.DNM.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-04-06 09:31:23
Document Index: 307153973

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 636', 'art, 331', '§ 423', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', 'art, 399', '§ 404', '§ 12', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', 'art 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404']

FindACase™ | Tedesco v. Saul
Tedesco v. Saul
GIOVANNI TEDESCO, Plaintiff,
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Reverse and/or Remand (Doc. 18) filed on March 10, 2019. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73(b), the parties have consented to me serving as the presiding judge and entering final judgment. See Docs. 9, 11, 12. Having considered the record, submissions of counsel, and relevant law, the Court finds Plaintiff's motion is not well-taken and will be denied.
On October 10, 2014, Mr. Giovanni Tedesco (Plaintiff) filed applications with the Social Security Administration for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act (SSA), and for Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the SSA. Administrative Record.[2] (AR) at 244, 249. Plaintiff alleged a disability onset date of October 25, 2013. AR at 13, 244, 249.[3] Disability Determination Services (DDS) determined that Plaintiff was not disabled both initially (AR at 73-74) and on reconsideration (AR at 127-128). Plaintiff requested a hearing with an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on the merits of his applications. AR at 148-49.
Both Plaintiff and a vocational expert (VE) testified during the de novo hearing. See AR at 36-72. ALJ Cole Gertner issued an unfavorable decision on November 1, 2017. AR at 10-35. Plaintiff submitted a Request for Review of Hearing Decision/Order to the Appeals Council (AR at 227-28), which the Council denied on September 12, 2018 (AR at 1-6). Consequently, the ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner. See Doyal v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 758, 759 (10th Cir. 2003).
A claimant seeking disability benefits must establish that he is unable “to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1505(a), 416.905(a). The Commissioner must use a five-step sequential evaluation process to determine eligibility for benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4); see also Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048, 1052 (10th Cir. 2009).
The claimant has the burden at the first four steps of the process to show: (1) he is not engaged in “substantial gainful activity”; (2) he has a “severe medically determinable . . . impairment . . . or a combination of impairments” that has lasted or is expected to last for at least one year; and (3) his impairment(s) meet or equal one of the listings in Appendix 1, Subpart P of 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404; or (4) pursuant to the assessment of the claimant's residual functional capacity (RFC), he is unable to perform his past relevant work. 20 C.F.R §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i-iv), 416.920(a)(4)(i-iv); see also Grogan v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 1257, 1261 (10th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). “RFC is a multidimensional description of the work-related abilities [a claimant] retain[s] in spite of [his] medical impairments.” Ryan v. Colvin, Civ. 15-0740 KBM, 2016 WL 8230660, at *2 (D.N.M. Sept. 29, 2016) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 § 12.00(B); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1)). If the claimant meets “the burden of establishing a prima facie case of disability[, ] . . . the burden of proof shifts to the Commissioner at step five to show that” Plaintiff retains sufficient RFC “to perform work in the national economy, given his age, education, and work experience.” Grogan, 399 F.3d at 1261 (citing Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 751 & n.2 (10th Cir. 1988)); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v).
At Step One of the process, [4] ALJ Gerstner found that Plaintiff “has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since October 25, 2013, the alleged onset date.” AR at 16 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1571-1576, 416.971-976). At Step Two, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff “has the following severe impairments: seizure disorder, degenerative disc disease, and degenerative joint disease of the wrists and knees.” AR at 16 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c)). The ALJ noted that Plaintiff has the following non-severe impairments: anxiety and depression. AR at 16.
At Step Three, the ALJ found that Plaintiff “does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 [C.F.R.] Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.” AR at 17 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925, 416.926). At Step Four, the ALJ considered the evidence of record and found that Plaintiff
has the [RFC] to perform light work as defined in 20 [C.F.R. §§] 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except for occasionally lifting and carrying twenty pounds, frequently lifting and carrying ten pounds, pushing and pulling within those exertional limitations, standing and walking six hours in an eight hour workday, sitting for six hours in an eight hour workday, occasionally climbing ramps and stairs, never climbing ladders, ropes or scaffolds, never working around unprotected heights[] or moving mechanical parts, and never operating a motor vehicle.
AR at 24. ALJ Gerstner found that Plaintiff “is unable to perform any past relevant work.” AR at 28 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1565, 416.965). The ALJ found that Plaintiff can perform the jobs of cashier II, ticket seller, and sales attendant. ALJ at 29. The ALJ ultimately determined that Plaintiff “has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from October 25, 2013, through the date of [the ALJ's] decision.” AR at 30 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g)).
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&ldquo;The possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency&#39;s findings from being supported by substantial evidence.&rdquo; Id. (quoting Zoltanski, 372 F.3d at 1200). The Court “may not ‘displace the agenc[y's] choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a ...