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.

Ashe v. Berryhill

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Chattanooga

April 2, 2018

AMY DENISE ASHE Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, [1] Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Christopher H. Steger Judge

         I. Introduction

         Plaintiff seeks judicial review pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act (“Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), of the denial by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-434. The parties have consented to entry of final judgment by the United States Magistrate Judge under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), with any appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit [Doc. 12]. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record [Doc. 8] shall be DENIED; the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 15] shall be GRANTED; and the decision of the Commissioner shall be AFFIRMED. Judgment in favor of Defendant shall be entered.

         II. Background

         A. Procedural History

         Plaintiff applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-434. (Tr. 171-78). Section 205(g) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), provides for judicial review of a “final decision” of the Commissioner of the SSA. Plaintiff's claim was denied and she requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”). (Tr. 135). On May 28, 2015, following a hearing, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled. (Tr. 11-27). On August 4, 2016, SSA's Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review. (Tr. 1-6). Thus, Plaintiff has exhausted her administrative remedies, and the ALJ's decision stands as the final decision of the Commissioner subject to judicial review. Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking review in this Court on October 6, 2016, which the Commissioner answered. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the administrative record [Doc. 8], and the Commissioner filed a motion for summary judgment [Doc. 15]. Both motions are ripe for review.

         B. The ALJ's Findings

         After considering the entire record, the ALJ made the following findings:

1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through March 31, 2017.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since September l, 2012, the alleged onset date (20 CFR 404.1571 et seq., and 416.971 et seq.).
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: status post fracture in right foot, left hip pain, status post kidney stones and an adjustment disorder (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, I find that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b): except the claimant can stand and/or walk for 4 hours of an 8 hour workday; she can occasionally use the right lower extremity for foot controls; she can occasionally balance, stoop, crawl, and use ramps and stairs; she cannot climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds; and she must avoid moderate exposure to hazards at work. The claimant can maintain concentration, persistence, and pace for 2 hours at a time, 8 hours a day, and 40 hours per week performing simple and detailed work; and she can occasionally interact with the general public.
6. The claimant has no past relevant work (20 CFR 404.1565 and 416.965).
7. The claimant was born on December 3, 1973, and was 38 years old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the alleged disability onset date (20 CFR 404.1563 and 416.963).
8. The claimant has at least a high school education and is able to communicate in English (20 CFR 404.1564 and 416.964).
9. Transferability of job skills is not an issue because the claimant does not have past relevant work (20 CFR 404.1568 and 416.968).
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 September 1, 2012, through the date of this decision (20 CFR 404.1520(g) and 416.920(g)).

         C. Relevant Facts

         1. Plaintiff's Age, Education, and Past Work Experience

         At the time of the hearing before the ALJ on April 15, 2015, Plaintiff was 41 years old. She was 38 years old at the time of her alleged onset of disability on September 1, 2012, and she has no past relevant work. She completed the eleventh grade and subsequently earned her General Education Development high school equivalency diploma. She also has an unexpired cosmetology license. (Tr. 32, 171).

         2. Plaintiff's Testimony ...


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.