United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
Honorable Aleta A. Trauger, District Judge.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
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 Plaintiff's claim
for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) as
provided under Title XVI 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. 17), to which Defendant has
responded. Docket Entry No. 21.
review of the administrative record as a whole and
consideration of the parties' filings, the undersigned
Magistrate Judge respectfully recommends that Plaintiff's
motion (Docket Entry No. 17) be DENIED.
filed an application for SSI on February 17, 2010.
See Transcript of the Administrative Record (Docket
Entry No. 12) at 138-39. She alleged a disability onset date of
February 8, 2010. AR 138-39. Plaintiff alleged that she was
unable to work because of head and neck cancer, dizziness,
stomach problems, high blood pressure, eye problems, and a
mental disorder. AR 162.
applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration.
AR 138-39. Pursuant to her request for a hearing before an
administrative law judge (“ALJ”), Plaintiff
appeared with counsel and testified at a hearing before ALJ
Renee S. Andrews-Turner on June 25, 2012. AR 98. On September
5, 2012, the ALJ granted the claim. AR 140-42. However, on
April 29, 2013, the Appeals Council found that the ALJ's
decision was not supported by substantial evidence and
remanded the case to the ALJ for further consideration. AR
remand, Plaintiff appeared with counsel for an additional
hearing before the ALJ on December 16, 2013. AR 64. The ALJ
held a supplemental hearing on September 12, 2014 following
an additional examination of Plaintiff. AR 36, 97. On October
28, 2014, the ALJ denied Plaintiff's claim. AR 6-8. The
Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review of
the ALJ's decision (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 October 28, 2014. AR 6-8.
Based upon the record, the ALJ made the following enumerated
1. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since February 17, 2010, the application date (20
CFR 416.971 et seq.).
2. The claimant has the following severe impairments: status
post stroke, hypertension, and organic mental disorder
3. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals one of the listed
impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR
416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926).
4. After careful consideration of the entire record, the
undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual
functional capacity to perform medium work as defined in 20
CFR 416.967(c) except the claimant can lift and/or carry 50
pounds occasionally and 25 pounds frequently; stand and/or
walk for 6 hours in an 8-hour workday; sit for 6 hours in an
8-hour workday; frequently claim ramp/stairs balance, stoop,
kneel, crouch, and crawl; occasionally climb
ladder/rope/scaffolds; should avoid concentrated exposure to
extreme cold, noise, and hazards; can understand, remember,
and carry out simple and detailed instructions; and maintain
concentration, pace and persistence for 2 hours at a time
during an 8-hour workday.
5. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work
(20 CFR 416.965).
6. The claimant, born on December 3, 1964, was 45 years old,
which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the
date the application was protectively filed (20 CFR 416.963).
7. The claimant has a limited (10th grade) education and is
able to communicate in English (20 CFR 416.964).
8. 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).
9. 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 416.969 and
10. The claimant has not been under a “disability,
” as defined in the Social Security Act since February
17, 2010, the date the application was protectively filed (20
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 ...