Source: http://dc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19900329_0000092.DDC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-08-19 22:36:13
Document Index: 754398984

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

WILLIAM A.X. SMITH, Plaintiff,
Plaintiff applied for supplemental security income benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act on October 8, 1987. The Secretary denied his claim at all administrative levels. This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Plaintiff's Motion for Reversal or Remand and the Defendant's Motion for Judgment of Affirmance. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3).
The ALJ's May 15, 1989 decision is the final reviewable decision in this case. Plaintiff contends that the decision of the Secretary that Plaintiff is not disabled and accordingly not entitled to supplemental security income benefits is not supported by substantial evidence. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3); Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 28 L. Ed. 2d 842, 91 S. Ct. 1420 (1971) (substantial evidence test).
The framework of the Social Security Act provisions and regulations promulgated thereunder is well-established in this circuit. See, e.g., Simms v. Sullivan, 278 U.S. App. D.C. 259, 877 F.2d 1047, 1049 (D.C.Cir. 1989); Smith v. Bowen, 264 U.S. App. D.C. 104, 826 F.2d 1120, 1121-22 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Brown v. Bowen, 253 U.S. App. D.C. 409, 794 F.2d 703, 705 (D.C.Cir. 1986).
42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act further provides that an individual will be determined to be disabled
42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(2)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(B). The claimant must establish that he was disabled prior to the expiration of his insured status. 42 U.S.C. § 423(a)(1)(A); see also Bastian v. Schweiker, 712 F.2d 1278, 1279-80 (8th Cir. 1983); Cowan v. Bowen, 664 F. Supp. 587, 588 (D.D.C. 1987).
The Secretary has established a five-step sequential analysis to determine whether a claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The claimant bears the burden of proving: first, that he is not engaged in substantial gainful work, see id. at § 404.1520(b); second, that he has "severe" impairments, i.e., ones that "significantly limit" his ability "to do basic work activities," see id. at § 404.1520(c); third, that he has one of the impairments listed in Appendix 1, see 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P ("Listing of Impairments"), for the requisite duration, see id. at § 404.1520(d); and fourth, that his impairment prevents him from engaging in past relevant work, see id. at § 404.1520(e). If the claimant survives each of these steps, the Secretary has the burden of proving that given a claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual non-disability, he is still capable of doing work other than his past relevant work, see id. at § 404.1520(f); see also Brown v. Bowen, 794 F.2d at 706 (describing shifting burdens).
In determining whether a claimant for supplemental income is disabled the factors to consider include: (1) medical data and findings; (2) expert medical opinions; (3) subjective complaints; and (4) the individual's age, ...