United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Knoxville
ADAM L. CHAMPION, Plaintiff,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
Clifford Shirley, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge:
case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b), Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
and the consent of the parties [Doc. 25]. Now before the
Court is the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgement and
Memorandum in Support [Docs. 18 & 19] and the
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in
Support [Docs. 23 & 24]. Adam L. Champion (“the
Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review of the decision of
the Administrative Law Judge (“the ALJ”), the
final decision of the Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security (“the
March 1, 2006, the Plaintiff filed an application for
disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and
supplemental security income (“SSI”), claiming a
period of disability which began December 26, 2003. [Tr.
261-69]. After his application was denied initially and upon
reconsideration, the Plaintiff requested a hearing. [Tr.
142]. On January 18, 2008, a hearing was held before an ALJ
to review determination of the Plaintiff's claim. [Tr.
59-81]. On August 29, 2008, the ALJ found that the Plaintiff
was not disabled. [Tr. 86-98]. The Appeals Council granted
the Plaintiff's request for review and issued an order,
remanding the case back to the ALJ on May 15, 2010. [Tr. 168,
99-102]. A second hearing was held in front of the ALJ on
March 17, 2011. [Tr. 49-58]. The ALJ again issued an
unfordable decision on July 12, 2011, finding that the
Plaintiff was not disabled. [Tr. 103-19]. On August 25, 2011,
the Plaintiff appealed the decision. [Tr. 225-26]. On January
30, 2013, the Appeals Council again remanded the case but
this time to a different ALJ. [Tr. 120-24]. A third hearing
was held on August 29, 2013. [Tr. 29-48]. The ALJ, however,
issued an unfavorable decision on January 16, 2014. [Tr.
8-28]. This time, the Appeals Council denied the
Plaintiff's request for review [Tr. 1-6]; thus, the
decision of the ALJ became the final decision of the
exhausted his administrative remedies, the Plaintiff filed a
Complaint with this Court on August 4, 2015, seeking judicial
review of the Commissioner's final decision under Section
405(g) of the Social Security Act. [Doc. 1]. The parties have
filed competing dispositive motions, and this matter is now
ripe for adjudication.
made the following findings:
1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the
Social Security Act through December 31, 2007.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since December 26, 2003, the alleged onset date (20
CFR 404.1571 et seq., and 416.971 et seq.).
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments:
depression, generalized anxiety disorder, degenerative disc
disease, membranous nephropathy, tachycardia, and
hypertension (20 CFR 404.1520(c) and 416.920(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, 416.920(d), 416.925
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 that he can
occasionally bend, stoop, squat, kneel, crouch, and/or crawl;
he can occasionally interact with the public, co-workers, and
supervisors; he can adapt to occasional changes; and he can
perform simple and detailed work.
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work
(20 CFR 404.1565 and 416.965).
7. The claimant was born on July 4, 1976 and was 27 years
old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on
the alleged disability onset date (20 CFR 404.1563 and
8. The claimant has at least a high school education and is
able to communicate in English (20 CFR 404.1565 and 416.964).
9. Transferability of job skills is not an issue in this case
because the claimant's past relevant work is unskilled
(20 CFR 404.1568 and 416.968).
10. Considering the claimant's age, education, work
experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs
that exist in significant numbers in the national economy
that the claimant can perform (20 CFR 404.1569, 404.1569(a),
416.969, and 416.696(a)).
11. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined
in the Social Security Act, from December 26, 2003, through
the date of this decision (20 CFR 404.1520(g) and