United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
Honorable Aleta A. Trauger, United States District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BROWN United States Magistrate Judge
before the court is the pro se Plaintiff's
motion for judgment on the administrative record (Docket
Entry No. 18), to which Defendant Commissioner of Social
Security (“Commissioner”) filed a response
(Docket Entry No. 19). Upon consideration of the parties'
filings and the transcript of the administrative record
(Docket Entry No. 12),  and for the reasons given herein, the
Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that
Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the administrative
record be DENIED and that the decision of
the Commissioner be AFFIRMED.
Emanyel Joseph Lherisson, filed an application for Disability
Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II and an
application for Supplemental Security Income
(“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security
Act on August 30, 2012, alleging disability onset as of July
26, 2012, due to depression, anxiety, high blood pressure,
attention deficit disorder. (Tr. 16, 266-67, 273, 292, 295).
Plaintiff's claims were denied at the initial level on
December 20, 2012, and on reconsideration on March 20, 2013.
(Tr. 124-25, 135-36, 145, 155-57, 168). Plaintiff
subsequently requested de novo review of her case by
an administrative law judge (“ALJ”). (Tr.
174-77). The ALJ heard the case on March 19, 2015, when
Plaintiff appeared with counsel and gave testimony. (Tr. 16,
47-91, 95). Testimony was also received by a
vocational expert. (Tr. 89, 92-95). At the conclusion of the
hearing, the ALJ referred Plaintiff to undergo a physical
consultative examination. On August 11, 2015, at
Plaintiff's request, the ALJ conducted a supplemental
hearing where Plaintiff again appeared with counsel and gave
testimony. (Tr. 16, 100, 110-13, 342). Testimony was received
by a different vocational expert. (Tr. 16, 105-110, 113-14).
The matter was taken under advisement until September 25,
2015, when the ALJ issued a written decision finding
Plaintiff not disabled. (Tr. 13-25). That decision contains
the following enumerated findings:
1. The claimant met the insured status requirements of Title
II of the Social Security Act through September 30, 2013.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since July 26, 2012, the alleged onset date (20 CFR
404.1571 et seq., and 416.971 et seq.).
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments:
obesity, uncontrolled hypertension resulting in chronic
kidney disease and congestive heart failure (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). Specifically he is able to lift and carry 20
pounds on occasion and ten pounds frequently. He can sit 6
hours total; stand 2 hours total and walk 2 hours total. He
can continuously use both hands and feet. He can never climb
ladders, ropes and scaffolding and can occasionally perform
all other postural activities. He should have no exposure to
extremes of temperature, unprotected heights, moving
mechanical parts, humidity, pulmonary irritants, and
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work
(20 CFR 404.1565 and 416.965).
7. The claimant is a younger individual (20 CFR 404.1563 and
8. The claimant has a high school equivalent education and
attended two semesters of college (20 CFR 404.1564 and
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
82-41and 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 26, 2012, through the
date of this decision (20 CFR 404.1520(g) and 416.920(g)).
12. The claimant's subjective complaints have been
evaluated as required under the applicable regulations and
(Tr. 18-20, 22-24).
October 18, 2016, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's
request for review of the ALJ's decision (Tr. 6-10),
thereby rendering that decision the final decision of the
Commissioner. This civil action was thereafter ...