United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Columbia Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Honorable Waverly D. Crenshaw, Chief District Judge
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”).(See Administrative
Record, DE 14, at 8-10). 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
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.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
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).
of the decision, the ALJ made the following enumerated
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
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
10. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined
in the Social Security Act, since November 6, 2013, the date