United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Northeastern Division
-LAURIE A. WHITTAKER
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL Security Administration
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
GREGORY WEHRMAN United States Magistrate Judge.
Honorable Waverly D. Crenshaw, Chief District Judge
before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for judgment on
the administrative record. See Docket Entry
(“DE”) 15. 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 a period of disability,
Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”), or
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”).
(See Administrative Transcript (“Tr.”)
at 17-19). 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 recommend that Plaintiff's motion
(DE 15) be GRANTED, the decision of the
Commissioner be REVERSED, and this matter be
REMANDED for further administrative
proceedings consistent with this Report.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
protectively filed an application for DIB and SSI on August
8, 2013 due to bipolar disorder, fibromyalgia, osteoporosis,
peripheral artery disease, and arthritis, with an alleged
disability onset date of January 15, 2010. (Tr. 121-22,
163). Her application was denied initially and
upon reconsideration. (Tr. 121-22, 159-60). Pursuant to her
request for a hearing before an ALJ, Plaintiff appeared with
counsel and testified at a hearing before ALJ George L.
Evans, III on December 16, 2015. (Tr. 42). On March 2, 2016,
the ALJ denied the claim. (Tr. 17-19). On April 5, 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
of the decision, the ALJ made the following enumerated
1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the
Social Security Act through June 30, 2017.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since June 16, 2014, the amended alleged onset date
(20 CFR 404.1571 et seq., and 416.971 et
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: back
pain; arthritis; fibromyalgia; peripheral arterial disease of
the lower extremities; obesity; vestibular hypofunction;
depressive disorder; and adjustment disorder with anxiety (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, the
undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual
functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20
CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b). The claimant can stand for a
total of four hours in an eight-hour workday; can walk for a
total of two hours in an eight-hour workday; can sit for four
hours in an eight-hour workday; requires the ability to
change position every 30 minutes; can never climb or crawl;
can occasionally bend, stoop, or crouch; can occasionally
operate foot controls; should avoid all exposure to heights,
hazards, and operating a motor vehicle; can work in jobs with
a specific vocational and preparation (SVP) rating of 3 or
less; and should avoid work involving public interaction and
work that depends upon close interaction with supervisors and
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work
(20 CFR 404.1565 and 416.965).
7. The claimant was born on December 16, 1964 and was 49
years old, which is defined as a younger individual age
18-49, on the alleged disability onset date. The claimant
subsequently changed age category to closely approaching
advanced age (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 material to the
determination of disability because using the
Medical-Vocational Rules as a framework supports a finding
that the claimant is “not disabled, ” whether or
not the claimant has transferable job skills (See
SSR 82-41 and 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2).
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 June 16, 2014, through the
date of this decision ...