United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division
ORDER REVERSING COMMISSIONER'S DECISION AND REMANDING PURSUANT TO SENTENCE FOUR OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
JAMES D. TODD, District Judge.
This action was filed by the Plaintiff, Roy Lee Easley, to obtain judicial review of the defendant Commissioner's final decision denying his applications for disability insurance benefits 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 Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq. Plaintiff's applications for benefits were denied initially and upon reconsideration by the Social Security Administration. At the Plaintiff's request, a hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") on November 16, 2010. (R. 24-33.) On January 25, 2011, the ALJ issued a decision finding that Plaintiff was not disabled. (R. 10-19.) The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review on April 16, 2012. (R. 1-5). Thus, the ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a claimant may obtain judicial review of any final decision made by the Commissioner after a hearing to which he or she was a party. The reviewing court may "enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing." Id. Judicial review is limited to determining whether or not there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the Commissioner's decision, and whether the correct legal standards were applied. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); see also Lindsley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 560 F.3d 601, 604-08 (6th Cir. 2009); Kyle v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 609 F.3d 847, 854 (6th Cir. 2010).
Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Perales, 402 U.S. at 401; Lindsley, 560 F.3d at 604-05; Kyle, 609 F.3d at 854. The Commissioner, not the reviewing court, is charged with the duty to weigh the evidence, to make credibility determinations, and to resolve material conflicts in the testimony. See Bass v. McMahon, 499 F.3d 506, 509 (6th Cir. 2007). In addition, if the decision is supported by substantial evidence, it should not be reversed even if substantial evidence also supports the opposite conclusion. See Foster v. Halter, 279 F.3d 348, 353 (6th Cir. 2001); Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986).
Plaintiff was born on April 28, 1967, and received a special eduction high school diploma. (R. 18, 27, 310.) He has past relevant work experience as a production assembler. (R. 18.) Plaintiff alleged that he became disabled on October 15, 2008, due to a lower back injury. (R. 117.)
In his decision, the ALJ found that Plaintiff met the non-disability insured status requirements and had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since his alleged disability onset date. (R. 12.) The ALJ also found that Plaintiff's borderline intellectual functioning, degenerative lumbar disc disease with radiculopathy, and depression were severe impairments but that his impairments did not, either singly or in combination, meet or medically equal a listed impairment in 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (R. 12-16.) The ALJ determined that Plaintiff's medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause his symptoms, but his statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms were not fully credible. (R. 16-17.) The ALJ further found that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to perform light work except that he was limited to only occasional climbing of ladders, ropes, and scaffolds; could understand, remember, concentrate, and attend to the completion of low-level detailed tasks; and had some, but not substantial, difficulties in relating to the general public, interacting with co-workers and supervisors, and adapting to changes in work-like settings. (R. 16-18.) Given Plaintiff's residual functional capacity, the ALJ determined he could not perform his past relevant work. (R. 18.) However, considering Plaintiff's age, education, work experience and residual functional capacity, and using the Medical-Vocational Guidelines ("grids") as a framework for decision-making, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that he can perform. (R. 18-19). Accordingly, Plaintiff was not under a disability at any time through the date of the decision. (R. 19.)
The Social Security Act defines disability as the inability to engage in substantial gainful activity. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1). The initial burden of going forward is on the claimant to show that he is disabled from engaging in her former employment; the burden then shifts to the Commissioner to demonstrate the existence of available employment compatible with the claimant's disability and background. Id.; see Felisky v. Bowen, 35 F.3d 1027, 1035 (6th Cir. 1994). The claimant bears the ultimate burden of establishing an entitlement to benefits. Cotton v. Sullivan, 2 F.3d 692, 695 (6th Cir. 1993).
In determining disability, the Commissioner conducts a five-step sequential analysis, as set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 and § 416.920:
1. An individual who is engaging in substantial gainful activity will not be found to be disabled regardless of medical findings.
2. An individual who does not have a severe impairment will not be found to be disabled.
3. A finding of disability will be made without consideration of vocational factors if an individual is not working and is suffering from a severe impairment which meets the duration requirement and which meets or equals a listed impairment found in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart. P, Appendix 1.
4. An individual who can perform work that he has done in the past will not be found to be disabled.
5. If an individual cannot perform his past relevant work, other factors including age, education, past work experience, and residual functional capacity will be considered to determine if other work can be performed.
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). Further analysis is unnecessary if it is determined that an individual is not disabled at any point in this sequential evaluation process. Id.; see also Howard v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 276 F.3d 235, 238 (6th Cir. 2002). Here, the analysis proceeded to step five, where the ALJ determined there are jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy that the ...