United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Chattanooga
KELLIE S. MITCHELL, Plaintiff,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
Christopher H. Steger UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
action was instituted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§
405(g) and 1383(c)(3) seeking judicial review of the
Commissioner's final decision denying Kellie
Mitchell's (“Plaintiff”) claim for
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”), as provided
by the Social Security Act.
parties have consented to entry of final judgment by the
United States Magistrate Judge under the provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 636(c), with any appeal to the Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit [Doc. 17]. Pending before the Court are
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 12] and
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 14].
reasons stated herein, the Court AFFIRMS the
Commissioner's decision. Accordingly, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff's Motion [Doc. 12] and GRANTS Defendant's
Motion [Doc. 14].
December 13, 2010, Plaintiff protectively filed for SSI under
Title XVI of the Social Security Act (“Act”), 42
U.S.C. § 1381 et seq., based on major
depressive disorder, lumbago with lumbosacral neuritis,
myofascial pain, and obesity with hypertension and edema of
the lower extremities [Tr. 96-106; Doc. 13 at 2]. Plaintiff's
claim was denied initially and on reconsideration [Tr. 66-70,
77-79]. Following a hearing, Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) Edward Snyder issued an unfavorable
decision dated April 5, 2012 [Tr. 11-21]. The Appeals Council
denied review of ALJ Snyder's decision [Tr. 1-3].
April 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed suit in this Court
[Mitchell v. SSA, No. 1:13-cv-134]. Following a
Joint Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand Under Sentence
Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court remanded the case
with instructions for the ALJ to further evaluate the opinion
evidence and Plaintiff's residual functional capacity
and, if necessary, to obtain supplemental vocational expert
testimony [Tr. 616-619]. The Appeals Council sent the case
back to an ALJ [Tr. 623-627].
Ronald Feibus conducted a hearing on September 16, 2014 [Tr.
570-596]. On February 5, 2015, Plaintiff appeared and
testified at a second hearing before ALJ Feibus [Tr.
496-569]. On March 25, 2015, the ALJ issued a decision
finding that Plaintiff “has not been under a
disability” as defined in the Act [Tr. 486]. Plaintiff
has exhausted her administrative remedies, and the ALJ's
decision stands as the Commissioner's final decision
subject to judicial review. See 42 U.S.C. §
Age, Education, and Past Work Experience
is currently a 46-year-old individual who has a limited
education and no past relevant work [Tr. 485; Doc. 13 at 3].
Testimony and Medical History
parties and the ALJ have thoroughly summarized and discussed
the medical and testimonial evidence of the administrative
record. Accordingly, the Court will discuss those matters as
relevant to the analysis of the parties' arguments.