United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
Honorable Aleta A. Trauger, District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
GREGORY WEHRMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
pending is Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the
administrative record. See Docket Entry
(“DE”) 14. Plaintiff brought this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) 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 Disability Insurance Benefits
(“DIB”). (See Administrative Transcript
(“Tr.”) at 18-20). 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.
review of the administrative record and consideration of the
parties' filings, I find no error that warrants reversal
of the Commissioner's decision in this case and therefore
recommend that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the
administrative record (DE 14) be
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
protectively filed an application for DIB on October 21, 2013
that alleged disability due to diabetes and neuropathy. (Tr.
60-61). She alleged an onset date of November 15,
2012. (Tr. 61). Her application was denied initially and on
reconsideration. (Tr. 60, 76).Pursuant to her request for a
hearing before an ALJ, Plaintiff appeared with counsel and
testified at a hearing before ALJ Scott C. Shimer on December
17, 2015. (Tr. 34). On March 1, 2016, the ALJ denied the
claim. (Tr. 18-20). On March 1, 2017, the Appeals Council
denied Plaintiff's request for a review of the ALJ's
decision. (Tr. 1-3). Therefore, the ALJ's decision stands
as the final determination of the Commissioner.
of the decision, the ALJ made the following enumerated
1. The claimant last met the insured status requirements of
the Social Security Act on September 30, 2015.
2. The claimant did not engage in substantial gainful
activity during the period from her alleged onset date of
November 15, 2012 through her date last insured of September
30, 2015 (20 CFR 404.1571 et seq.).
3. Through the date last insured, the claimant had the
following severe impairment: Diabetes type I (20 CFR
4. Through the date last insured, the claimant did not have
an impairment or combination of impairments that met or
medically equaled the severity of one of the listed
impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR
404.1520(d), 404.1525 and 404.1526).
5. After careful consideration of the entire record, the
undersigned finds that, through the date last insured, the
claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform
light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) except the
claimant may frequently balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and
crawl. The claimant may not climb ladders, ropes, or
scaffolds. There should be no concentrated exposure to
vibrations. She may not work at unprotected heights or around
unguarded moving machinery.
6. Through the date last insured, the claimant was capable of
performing past relevant work as a nursery school attendant
(DOT # 359.677-018, Light SVP4). This work did not require
the performance of work-related activities precluded by the
claimant's residual functional capacity (20 CFR
7. The claimant was not under a disability, as defined in the
Social Security Act, at any time from November 15, 2012, the
alleged onset date, through September 30, 2015, the date last
insured (20 CFR 404.1520(f)).
appeal, Plaintiff submits two assertions of error: (1) that
the ALJ's credibility determination is not supported by
substantial evidence; and (2) that the ALJ improperly relied
on vocational expert testimony provided in response to an
incomplete hypothetical question. DE 14-1 at 6.