United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Northeastern Division
KIMBERLY A. URBAN, Plaintiff,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
H. SHARP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motions for
Judgment on the Administrative Record (Docket Entry Nos.
23 and 24). The motion has been fully briefed by the parties.
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”)
denying Plaintiff’s claim for disability insurance
under Title II and Supplemental Security Income
(“SSI”), as provided by the Social Security Act
(“the Act”). Upon review of the administrative
record as a whole and consideration of the parties’
filings, the Court finds that the Commissioner’s
determination that Plaintiff is not disabled under the Act is
supported by substantial evidence in the record as required
by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Plaintiff’s motion will be
Kimberly A. Urban, filed applications for disability
insurance benefits and SSI under Titles II and XVI of the Act
on May 29, 2012, alleging an onset date of July 11, 2011.
(Tr. 121-35). The Social Security Administration
(“SSA”) initially denied Plaintiff’s
applications on July 26, 2012. (Tr. 77-84). Plaintiff
requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”). (Tr. 86-87). The hearing took place
before the ALJ on March 22, 2013. (Tr. 32-56). On April 4,
2013, the ALJ denied Plaintiff’s claims. (Tr. 17-28).
On May 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed a request for a review of
the ALJ’s hearing decision. (Tr. 7-11). The Appeals
Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review on June
3, 2013, thereby making the ALJ’s decision the final
decision of the Commissioner. (Tr. 1-6). This civil action
was thereafter timely filed, and the Court has jurisdiction.
42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
issued an unfavorable decision on April 4, 2013. (AR p. 17).
Based upon the record, the ALJ made the following enumerated
1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the
Social Security Act through June 30, 2014.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since July 11, 20l1, the alleged onset date (20 CFR
404.1571 et seq., and 416.971 et seq.).
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments:
obesity; status-post calcaneal fracture with complex regional
pain syndrom (CRPS); and an adjustment disorder with
depressed mood (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, 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 no more than two hours
standing and/or walking in an eight-hour day; unskilled work
only, with no production-like standards such as one might
find on a conveyor belt or assembly line; and the claimant
would have the option to sit or stand at her own discretion.
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work
(20 CFR 404.1565 and 416.965).
7. Claimant was born November 13, 1978 which is defined as a
younger individual age 18-49, on the alleged disability onset
date (20 CFR 404.1563 and 416.963).
8. The claimant has at least a high school 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 national economy
that the claimant can perform (20 CFR 404.1569, 404.1569(a),
416.969, and 416.969(a)).
11. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined
in the Social Security Act, from July 11, 2011, through the
date of this decision (20 CFR 404.1520(g) and 416.920(g)).
REVIEW OF THE RECORD
following summary of the evidence of record is taken from
Plaintiff’s brief, Docket Entry No. 25 at pp. 2-4:
Plaintiff was born on November 13, 1978, and was a younger
individual on [her] AOD., [and] Plaintiff received a high
school education. (Tr. 27). Plaintiff has past relevant work
as a data entry clerk and a stock clerk. (Tr. 27). Plaintiff
has not performed substantial gainful activity
(“SGA”) since July 11, 2011 and is insured for
DIB through June 30, 2014. (Tr. 22).
On July 11, 2011, Plaintiff presented to the [e]mergency room
after fracturing her heel on a water slide. (Tr. 195). At
that time, she complained of right ankle and foot pain. (Tr.
190). Eventually diagnostic testing revealed a
“fracture through the calcaneus body and posterior
tubercle centers at least the posterior articular
facet.” (Tr. 198). Essentially – Plaintiff broke
the heel of her foot. Unfortunately, Plaintiff’s
records show that her condition continued to produce
excruciating pain for the Plaintiff. Nevertheless, Plaintiff
returned to the office three months after the fracture
occurred, on September 12, 2011, complaining that the pain in
her heel was so great, she was unable to walk. (Tr. 229). The
next day, Plaintiff called ...