Leake v. Colvin

Leake v. Colvin

Opinion

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 405 (g), Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner for Social Security ("Commissioner") denying her application for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") under Title II of the Social Security Act and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") under Title XVI of the Act.¹ See Compl. (doc. 1). The Commissioner has filed an answer, see Def.'s Answer (doc. 10), and a certified copy of the transcript of the administrative proceedings, see SSA Admin. R. [hereinafter "Tr."] (doc. 12), including the hearing before the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). The parties have briefed the issues. See Pl.'s Br. (doc. 14); Def.'s Resp. Br. (doc. 15). The United States District Judge referred the case to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the parties have not consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. [*2]  After considering the pleadings, briefs, and administrative record, the undersigned recommends that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff claims that she is disabled due to a heart condition, arthritis, gout, bronchitis, and depression. Tr. 161. She filed applications for DIB and SSI on June 27, 2012,² alleging disability beginning September 11, 2008. Tr. 123, 127. She later amended the alleged onset date to September 30, 2011, Tr. 232, the date she was last insured, see Tr. 149. Therefore, the relevant time period for these applications and the Court's review commenced September 30, 2011. See Tr. 27. The Commissioner denied both applications initially on September 12, 2012, Tr. 62-63, and on reconsideration in January 2013, Tr. 64-65. At Plaintiff's request, see Tr. 88, she received a hearing before ALJ Christopher VanDyck on September 18, 2013, see Tr. 33-60. On November 22, 2013, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision finding that Plaintiff was not disabled and was capable of performing work that existed in significant numbers in the national economy. Tr. [*3]  27.

Applying the five-step analysis set out in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4), the ALJ first determined that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the date of alleged onset of disability. Tr. 15. The ALJ next determined that Plaintiff suffered from the following severe impairments: degenerative joint disease in her knees, hips, and back; complex regional pain syndrome ("CRPS") involving her left hand; obesity; hypertension; depression with psychotic features; and post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD"). Tr. 15-16. Third, the ALJ found that Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or equaled the severity of any impairment in the listings.³ Tr. 17-19. The ALJ then determined that Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity ("RFC")⁴ to perform light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(b), 416.967(b)⁵ with the following modifications: [*4]  (1) frequently balance; (2) occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, and climb ramps and stairs; (3) never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; (4) handle and finger with he left upper extremity no more than frequently; (5) avoid exposure to vibration; (6) mentally able to understand, remember, and carry out simple instructions and tasks; (7) occasional contact with public, coworkers, and supervisors; and (8) able to adapt to occasional workplaces changes that are gradually introduced. Tr. 19. The ALJ found that Plaintiff had no past relevant work. Tr. 25. And based upon the RFC determination and testimony from a vocational expert, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was capable of performing other jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. Tr. 26-27. At Step 5 of the evaluative sequence, the ALJ found Plaintiff not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act at any point between September 30, 2011, and the date of his decision. Tr. 27.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.