United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Columbia Division
JAMES B. MOSLEY
NANCY A. BERRYHILLActing Commissioner of Social Security
BARBARA D. HOLMES United States Magistrate Judge
filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g)
and 1383(c)(3) to obtain judicial review of the final
decision of the Social Security Administration
(“Commissioner”) denying his claim for a period
of disability and Disability Insurance Benefits
(“DIB”), as provided under Title II of the Social
Security Act (“the Act”). The case is currently
pending on Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the
administrative record (Docket Entry No. 13), to which
Defendant has responded (Docket Entry No. 18). Plaintiff has
also filed a subsequent reply to Defendant's response
(Docket Entry No. 19). This action is before the undersigned
for all further proceedings pursuant to the consent of the
parties and referral of the District Judge in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (Docket Entry No. 22).
review of the administrative record as a whole and
consideration of the parties' filings, Plaintiff's
motion is DENIED and the decision of the
Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
filed an application for a period of disability and DIB on
July 21, 2010. See Transcript of the Administrative
Record (Docket Entry No. 10) at 70-71. He alleged a
disability onset date of February 1, 2008. AR
70-71. Plaintiff asserted that he was unable to
work due to blindness in the left eye, vision problems in the
right eye, coronary artery disease, and headaches. AR 75, 79.
applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration.
AR 70-74. Pursuant to his request for a hearing before an
administrative law judge (“ALJ”), Plaintiff
testified at a hearing before ALJ Marty S. Turner on February
15, 2012. AR 31. On April 23, 2012, the ALJ denied the claim.
AR 15-17. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request
for review of the ALJ's decision on April 15, 2013 (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 April 23, 2012. AR 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 December 31, 2014.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since August 19, 2009, his amended alleged onset
date (20 CFR 404.1571 et seq.).
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: Vision
loss, coronary artery disease, and status post history of
blood clots (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, and 404.1526).
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). He can lift or carry up to 20 pounds
occasionally and 10 pounds frequently[, ] can sit, stand or
walk up to 6 hours out of an 8-hour day with normal breaks,
and is unlimited in his ability to push or pull. He can
occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, and climb
stairs or ramps, but never any ladders, ropes or scaffolds.
He must avoid temperature extremes and exposure to workplace
hazards such as moving machinery and unprotected heights. He
is also limited to work that can be performed with monocular
vision and that requires no more than occasional near acuity,
occasional far acuity, occasional peripheral acuity and
occasional depth perception.
6. The claimant is unable to perform any of his past relevant
work as a shipping clerk, heavy equipment operator, furnace
operator, machine maintenance mechanic, or computer operator
(20 CFR 404.1565).
7. The claimant was born on November 19, 1959 and was 49
years old, which is defined as a younger individual age
18-49, on his amended alleged disability onset date. The
claimant subsequently changed age category to closely
approaching advanced age three months later on November 19,
2009 (20 CFR 404.1563).
8. The claimant has at least a high school education and is
able to communicate in English (20 CFR 404.1564).
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 he 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 he can perform (20 CFR 404.1569 and 404.1569(a)).
11. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined
in the Social Security Act, from February 1, 2008, through
the date of this decision (20 CFR 404.1520(g)).
REVIEW OF THE RECORD
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
only to the extent necessary to analyze the parties'
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW