Source: http://mo.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190917_0001797.EMO.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-08-04 12:15:16
Document Index: 298938991

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 405', '§ 401', '§ 1381', '§ 636', '§ 404', '§ 404']

FindACase™ | Weed v. Saul
Weed v. Saul
KAREN WEED, Plaintiff,
This is an action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) for judicial review of the final decision of Defendant Andrew M. Saul, the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, denying the application of Plaintiff Karen Weed (“Plaintiff”) for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq., and for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381, et seq. (the “Act”). The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc. 8). For the reasons set forth below, the decision of the Commissioner will be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum and Order.
On June 1, 2015, Plaintiff applied for DIB and SSI, alleging that she has been unable to work since April 28, 2015. (Tr. 151). Her application was initially denied on August 24, 2015. (Tr. 109). Following a hearing by an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), the ALJ found Plaintiff was not under a “disability” as defined in the Act. (Tr. 10). Plaintiff filed a Request for Review of Hearing Decision with the Social Security Administration's Appeals Council, and on May 22, 2018, the Appeals Council declined to review the case. (Tr. 1). Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative remedies, and the decision of the ALJ stands as the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.
Applying the foregoing five-step analysis, the ALJ here found that Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date, April 28, 2015; that Plaintiff has the severe impairments of fibromyalgia, obesity, migraine, osteoarthritis of the left knee, and carpal tunnel syndrome; and 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. § 404[2], Subpart P, Appendix 1. (Tr. 16-18). The ALJ found that Plaintiff has the RFC to perform a range of sedentary work as defined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(a), except that she can frequently finger and handle; can occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, and climb ramps and stairs; can never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; and must avoid concentrated exposure to loud noise and hazards such as dangerous machinery and unprotected heights. (Tr. 19). The ALJ found that Plaintiff is unable to perform any of her past relevant work.[3] (Tr. 25). However, relying on the testimony of a vocational expert (“VE”), the ALJ found that Plaintiff would be able to perform the occupations of order clerk, food and beverage (Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”) No. 209.567-014, 208, 000 jobs in the national economy), and charge account clerk (DOT No. 205.367-014, 396, 000 jobs in the national economy). (Tr. 26). The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined in the Act, from April 28, 2015, through the date of her decision. Id.
Plaintiff challenges the ALJ's decision, arguing that the ALJ erred by failing to formulate an RFC supported by substantial evidence (1) because she did not properly consider or discuss Plaintiff's sleep apnea; and, (2) because she did not include all the limitations from the consultative examiner's opinion into the RFC, and did not explain the discrepancy. The Commissioner argues that the ALJ did not err by failing to find Plaintiff's sleep apnea to be “severe, ” because Plaintiff failed to allege that her sleep apnea limited her ability to perform basic work activities. The Commissioner ...