United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
SHARRON D. SIMS
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BARBARA D. HOLMES United States Magistrate Judge.
filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to
obtain judicial review of the final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”)
that denied Plaintiff's claim for a period of disability,
Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”), and
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”), as provided
by the Social Security Act (“the Act”). The case
is currently pending on Plaintiff's motion for judgment
on the pleadings (Docket Entry No. 12), to which Defendant
has filed a response (Docket Entry No. 14).
review of the administrative record as a whole and
consideration of the parties' filings, the Court
recommends that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the
administrative record (Docket Entry No. 12) be GRANTED, the
decision of the Commissioner be reversed, and this matter be
remanded for further administrative proceedings consistent
with this Report.
protectively filed for a period of disability, DIB, and SSI
on November 17, 2010. See Transcript of the
Administrative Record (Docket Entry No. 10),  at 16, 71-72. She
alleged a disability onset date of June 30, 2009, although
she later amended this date to November 1, 2010. AR 16, 18,
71-72. Plaintiff asserted that she was unable to work because
of type II diabetes, fainting spells, bipolar disorder,
depression, and post traumatic stress disorder
(“PTSD”). AR 79-80.
applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration.
AR 71-74. After submitting a request for a hearing before an
administrative law judge (“ALJ”), Plaintiff
appeared with counsel and testified at a hearing before ALJ
Elizabeth P. Neuhoff on July 19, 2012. AR 41. On August 3,
2012, the ALJ issued a decision unfavorable to Plaintiff. AR
13-15. On October 18, 2013, the Appeals Council denied
Plaintiff's request for review of the ALJ's decision
(AR 1-3), thereby making the ALJ's decision the final
decision of the Commissioner. This civil action was
thereafter timely filed, and the Court has jurisdiction. 42
U.S.C. § 405(g).
THE ALJ FINDINGS
issued an unfavorable decision on August 3, 2012. AR 13-15.
Based upon the record, the ALJ made the following enumerated
1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the
Social Security Act through March 31, 2014.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since November1, 2010, the amended alleged onset
date (20 CFR 404.1571 et seq., and 416.971 et
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments:
diabetes mellitus; gastritis; syncope; and mild right
acromioclavicular joint osteoarthritis (20 CFR 404.1520(c)
4. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of
one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P,
Appendix 1 (20 CFR 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526,
416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926).
5. After careful consideration of the entire record, the
undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual
functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20
CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except the claimant could lift
and/or carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently;
sit, stand, or walk 6 hours total each; no overhead work with
the right upper extremity; and no work around hazards. The
claimant is able to perform unskilled work consisting of
simple tasks and instructions; occasional contact with
public; work-only related contact with co-workers and
supervisors; and occasional change in the workplace.
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work
(20 CFR 404.1565 and 416.965).
7. The claimant was born on August 20, 1968 and was 42 years
old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on
the amended alleged disability onset date (20 CFR 404.1563
8. The claimant has a marginal (6th grade) education and is
able to communicate in English (20 CFR 404.1564 and 416.964).
9. Transferability of job skills is not material to the
determination of disability because using the
Medical-Vocational Rules as a framework supports a finding
that the claimant is “not disabled, ” whether or
not the claimant has transferable job skills (See SSR 82-41
and 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2).
10. Considering the claimant's age, education, work
experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs
that exist in significant numbers in the regional and
national economy that the claimant can perform (20 ...