Opinion ID: 2976331
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Social Security Act and disability

Text: The issue on appeal is whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Anthony was not disabled during the relevant time period. To be entitled to DIB, a claimant must be “disabled” within the meaning of Title II of the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. § 423. Section -7- No. 07-3344 Anthony v. Comm Social Security 423(d)(1)(A) defines “disability” as the “inability 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 . . . .” The Act further provides that [a]n individual shall be determined to be under a disability only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy . . . . 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A). In making a determination as to disability under the above definition, an ALJ is required to follow a five-step sequential analysis set out in the SSA’s regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. In Walters v. Commissioner of Social Security, 127 F.3d 525 (6th Cir. 1997), this court summarized the five-step analysis as follows: 1. If claimant is doing substantial gainful activity, he is not disabled. 2. If claimant is not doing substantial gainful activity, his impairment must be severe before he can be found to be disabled. 3. If claimant is not doing substantial gainful activity and is suffering from a severe impairment that has lasted or is expected to last for a continuous period of at least twelve months, and his impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, claimant is presumed disabled without further inquiry. 4. If claimant’s impairment does not prevent him from doing his past relevant work, he is not disabled. 5. Even if claimant’s impairment does prevent him from doing his past relevant work, if other work exists in the national economy that -8- No. 07-3344 Anthony v. Comm Social Security accommodates his residual functional capacity and vocational factors (age, education, skills, etc.), he is not disabled. Id. at 529 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520). Under the first four steps, the claimant has the burden of proof. Young v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 925 F.2d 146, 147-48 (6th Cir. 1990). At step five, however, the burden of proof shifts to the Commissioner. Id.