Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Marie v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Columbia Division

March 22, 2018

APRIL MARIE
v.
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION[1]

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Honorable Waverly D. Crenshaw, Chief District Judge

         Currently pending is Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the administrative record. See Docket Entry (“DE”) 18. Plaintiff brought 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”). At issue is whether the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred in finding that Plaintiff was “not disabled, ” and therefore not entitled to Supplement Security Income (“SSI”).[2](See Administrative Record, DE 14, at 8-10).[3] This matter has been referred to the undersigned, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), for initial consideration and a report and recommendation. See DE 6.

         Upon review of the administrative record and consideration of the parties' filings, I find no error that would necessitate remand in this case and therefore recommend that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the administrative record (DE 18) be DENIED.

         I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Plaintiff protectively filed an application for SSI on November 6, 2013 due to borderline intellectual functioning, social anxiety disorder, and other mood disorders, with an alleged disability onset date of July 2, 2013. (Tr. 54-55). Her application was denied initially and on reconsideration. (Tr. 54, 68). Pursuant to her request for a hearing before an ALJ, Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified at a hearing before ALJ Donald E. Garrison on November 19, 2015. (Tr. 23). On January 14, 2016, the ALJ denied the claim. (Tr. 8-10). On February 3, 2017, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for a review of the ALJ's decision; therefore, the ALJ's decision stands as the final determination of the Commissioner. (Tr. 1-3).

         As part of the decision, the ALJ made the following enumerated findings:

1. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since November 6, 2013, the application date (20 CFR 416.971 et seq.).
2. The claimant has the following severe impairments: borderline intellectual functioning, mood disorder not otherwise specified and adjustment disorder not otherwise specified (20 CFR 416.920(c)).
3. 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 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 a full range of work at all exertional levels but with the following nonexertional limitations: she can understand, remember and carry out short and simple instructions and make judgments on simple work related decisions; have occasional contact with supervisors and coworkers but no contact with the public; cannot perform production rate pace work which is quota assembly line work; and can tolerate occasional changes in work procedures/requirements.
5. The claimant has no past relevant work (20 CFR 416.965).
6. The claimant was born on August 16, 1994 and was 19 years old, which is defined as a younger individual 18-49, on the date the application was filed (20 CFR 416.963).
7. The claimant has at least a high school education and is able to communicate in English (20 CFR 416.964).
8. Transferability of job skills is not an issue because the claimant does not have past relevant work (20 CFR 416.968).
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 416.969(a)).
10. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, since November 6, 2013, the date the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.