United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
Crenshaw Chief Judge
King, Magistrate Judge
AND RECOMMENDATION To The Honorable Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr.,
filed a complaint seeking judicial review, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 405(g), of the final decision of the
Commissioner denying her claim for Social Security disability
benefits. (Docket # 1). The Commissioner filed an electronic
copy of the administrative record. (Docket # 11). Plaintiff
filed her First Motion for Judgment on the Record, along with
a supporting memorandum of law. (Dockets # 15 and 16). The
Commissioner responded in opposition to Plaintiff's
motion. (Docket # 17). The matter is ripe for determination.
March 1, 2018, the Court referred the matter to the
undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 631 and 636 and Administrative Order No. 24.
Section 631 authorizes designation of magistrate judges to
serve in districts adjoining the district for which they were
appointed. Administrative Order No. 24 was entered on June
12, 2017, and signed by the Chief Judges for the Middle
District of Tennessee and the Western District of Kentucky.
Section 636 authorizes magistrate judges to submit reports
and recommendations to district judges on any
Magistrate Judge finds the administrative law judge's
(ALJ's) decision was supported by substantial evidence
and was in accord with applicable legal standards. The
RECOMMENDATION, therefore, will be that the Court DENY
Plaintiff's First Motion for Judgment on the Record
(Docket # 15); AFFIRM the Commissioner's final decision;
and DISMISS Plaintiff's complaint.
January 2016, the ALJ issued the Commissioner's final
decision denying Plaintiff's claim for supplemental
security income (SSI) benefits pursuant to Title XVI of the
Social Security Act, pursuant to the familiar five-step
sequential evaluation process.
ALJ found that Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial
gainful activity since January 2014, when she filed her
application for benefits. (ALJ's decision, Administrative
Record (AR), p. 12).
ALJ found that Plaintiff suffers from the following
“severe, ” or vocationally significant,
impairments: osteoarthritis, asthma, and hypertension. (AR,
ALJ found that none of these impairments satisfies the
medical criteria of any impairment listed in Appendix 1 of
the regulations. (AR, p. 14).
required in all cases that advance beyond Step 3, the ALJ
determined Plaintiff's residual functional capacity
(RFC), finding that her impairments restrict her to a limited
range of “light” work as defined in 20 C.F.R.
§ 416.967(b). (AR, pp. 14-15).
ALJ found that Plaintiff is unable to perform her past
relevant work. (AR, p. 20).
ALJ found that Plaintiff is not disabled because, considering
her age, education, work experience, and RFC, there are jobs
that exist in significant numbers in the national economy
that she can perform. AR, p. 21.
presents three arguments (in her own words):
1. The ALJ erred by failing to properly consider all of the
Plaintiff's impairments and by failing to provide
sufficient reasons for not finding these impairments to be
2. The ALJ erred by failing to properly consider the opinion
of Consultative Examiner Dr. Bruce Davis.
3. The ALJ erred by failing to include a function-by-function
assessment in the RFC assessment as required by SSR ...