United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court is Mary Dias' (“Dias”)
Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record
(“Motion”) (Doc. No. 14), filed with a Memorandum
in Support (Doc. No. 14-1). The Commissioner of Social
Security (“Commissioner”) filed a Response in
Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. No. 15). This case
was referred to the magistrate judge (Doc. No. 3). The Court
withdraws that referral. In addition, upon consideration of
the parties' filings and the transcript of the
administrative record (Doc. No. 10),  and for the reasons given
below, the Court will DENY Dias' Motion and DISMISS the
March 1, 2011, Dias filed an application for Disability
Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the
Social Security Act and Supplemental Security Income
(“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Act, alleging a
disability onset of December 31, 2009 (“alleged onset
date”). (A.R. 17.) Dias' claim was denied at the
initial and reconsideration stages of state agency review.
(Id.) Dias subsequently requested de novo
review of her case by an Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”). (Id. at 97.) The ALJ heard the
case on March 26, 2013, when Dias appeared with an attorney
and gave testimony. (Id. at 32.) Testimony was also
received from an impartial vocational expert. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the matter was taken under
advisement until May 17, 2013, when the ALJ issued a written
decision finding Dias not disabled prior on the alleged onset
date. (Id.) That decision contains the following
1. Dias meets the insured status requirements of the Social
Security Act through December 31, 2009, the alleged onset
2. Dias has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since
the alleged onset date (20 C.F.R. 404.1571 et seq.,
and 416.971 et seq.).
3. Dias has the following severe impairments: arthritis; left
hand trigger finger and chronic hand pain secondary to
Dupuytren's contracture (20 C.F.R. 404.1520(c) and
4. Since the alleged onset date, Dias does not have an
impairment or combination of impairments that meets or
medically equals the severity of one of the listed
impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20
C.F.R. 404.1520(d), 404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925 and
5. Dias had the residual functional capacity
(“RFC”) to perform light work as defined in 20
C.F.R. 404.1567(b) and 416.967 (b) except she can
occasionally lift and carry up to 20 pounds; frequently lift
and carry up to 10 pounds; has no limitations in sitting or
standing; no problems with the dominant right upper
extremity, but can only engage in frequent pushing and
pulling with the non-dominant left upper extremity within the
weight limitations above; can only occasionally climb ramps
and stairs; can frequently balance, stoop, crouch, kneel, and
crawl; and has no manipulative limitations except with the
non-dominant upper left extremity in which she can handle and
finger (i.e. fine and gross manipulations) no more than
frequently with the non-dominant left upper extremity.
6. Dias can perform past relevant work as a cashier and store
manager. This work does not require the performance of
work-related activities precluded by her RFC (20 C.F.R.
404.1565 ad 416.965).
7. Dias was not under a disability within the meaning of the
Social Security Act at any time from April 2, 2006 through
December 31, 2009, the date last insured (20 C.F.R.
404.1520(f) and 416.920(f)).
(Id. at 19-24.)
20, 2014, the Appeals Council denied Dias' request for
review of the ALJ's decision, thereby rendering that
decision the final decision of the SSA. (Id. at 1.)
This civil action was thereafter timely filed, and the Court
has jurisdiction. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).