Source: http://tx.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190802_0001350.STX.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-05-25 18:41:02
Document Index: 392502752

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 404', '§ 404', 'art 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', 'art, 415', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404']

FindACase™ | Scherer v. Berryhill
Trina Gay Scherer, Plaintiff,
Peter Bray, United States Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Trina Gay Scherer appeals the Social Security Administration Commissioner's final decision denying her application for social security benefits. (D.E. 1.) Pending before the court is Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (D.E. 12) and Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. (D.E. 14.) Having carefully considered the motions, filings, and applicable law, the court affirms the final decision of the Commissioner.
Scherer applied for disability insurance benefits on November 9, 2015. She claimed to suffer from physical and mental impairments with an onset date of August 27, 2015. After her application was denied on an initial review and on reconsideration, Scherer requested a hearing.
The hearing was held on March 31, 2017. The ALJ issued a decision on July 24, 2017, finding Scherer not disabled. The Appeals Council denied Scherer's request for review on May 15, 2018. Scherer filed this complaint in federal court to appeal the ALJ's decision.
At step two, the ALJ determines whether any of the claimant's impairments is severe, irrespective of age, education, or work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c) (2017). An impairment is not severe "only if it is a slight abnormality having such minimal effect on the individual that it would not be expected to interfere with the individual's ability to work, irrespective of age, education or work experience." Stone v. Heckler, 752 F.2d 1099, 1101 (5th Cir. 1985). A person who does not have a severe impairment is not disabled. Wren, 925 F.2d at 125.
The ALJ next determines, at step three, if the claimant's severe impairments "meet[] or equal[] a listed impairment in appendix 1." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d) (2017); see 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (2017) (the "Listings"). If all the criteria of a Listing are met, the claimant is considered disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d) (2017).
Before reaching the final two steps, the ALJ must assess the claimant's residual functional capacity (RFC) "based on all the relevant medical and other evidence." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) (2017). An RFC assessment "is a determination of the most the claimant can still do despite his physical and mental limitations and is based on all relevant evidence in the claimant's record." Perez v. Barnhart, 415 F.3d 457, 461-62 (5th Cir. 2005) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1)).
At step four, the RFC is used to determine whether the claimant can perform past relevant work. Perez, 415 F.3d at 462. If the claimant can perform their past work, the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f) (2017). If not, the ALJ proceeds to step five. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g)(1) (2017).
This court's "review of the ALJ's disability determination is 'highly deferential': [it] ask[s] only whether substantial evidence supports the decision and whether the correct legal standards were employed." Garcia v. Berryhill, 880 F.3d 700, 704 (5th Cir. 2018). "A decision is supported by substantial evidence if credible evidentiary choices or medical findings support the decision." Salmond v. Berryhill, 892 F.3d 812, 817 (5th Cir. 2018). "Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance." Id. The reviewing court is required to examine the record as a whole to determine whether substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision. Randall v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 105, 109 (5th Cir. 1992).