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.

Mullin v. Saul

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Northeastern Division

July 2, 2019

JAMES IRA MULLIN
v.
ANDREW M. SAUL Commissioner of Social Security[1]

          Honorable Waverly D. Crenshaw, Chief District Judge

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          BAPLBARA D. HOLMES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff filed 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”) denying Plaintiff's claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) as provided under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (“the Act”). The case is currently pending on Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the administrative record (see Docket Entry (“DE”) 15), to which Defendant has filed a response. See DE 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 4.

         Upon review of the administrative record as a whole and consideration of the parties' filings, the undersigned Magistrate Judge respectfully recommends that Plaintiff's motion (DE 15) be DENIED.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff filed applications for DIB and SSI on March 13, 2015. See Transcript of the Administrative Record (DE 11) at 83-84.[2] He alleged a disability onset date of March 31, 2012. AR 83-84. Plaintiff asserted that he was unable to work because of fibromyalgia, Parsonage-Turner syndrome, tendonitis, costochondritis, muscle spasms, insomnia, high blood pressure, myopathy, back and shoulder pain, chest pain, vertigo, depression, and anxiety. AR 131.

         Plaintiff's applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration. AR 122-23. Pursuant to his request for a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”), Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified at a hearing before ALJ K. Dickson Grissom on June 14, 2017. AR 68. The ALJ denied the claim on January 16, 2018. AR 20-22. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review of the ALJ's decision on May 10, 2018 (AR 1-3), thereby making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. This civil action was thereafter timely filed and the Court has jurisdiction. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

         II. THE ALJ FINDINGS

         The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision and made the following enumerated findings based upon the record:

1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2017.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since March 31, 2012, the alleged onset date. (20 CFR 404.1571 et seq., and 416.971 et seq.).
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: muscle spasms, arthritis, hypertension, pain disorders in left shoulder and upper chest, costochondritis, obesity, Parsonage-Turner syndrome and 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, 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) except he can occasionally climb, balance, stoop-bending [sic] from the waist to the floor, kneel, crouch and crawl. The claimant can perform no work around hazards such as dangerous moving machinery or unprotected heights. The claimant can perform no more than simple, routine and repetitive non-detailed tasks; with coworker and public contact being no more than casual and superficial (meaning no more than occasional), supervision would be direct and non-confrontational (meaning he would require no special supervision), and changes in the workplace would be infrequent and gradually introduced.
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work (20 CFR 404.1565 and 416.965).
7. The claimant was born on February 7, 1971 and was 41 years old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the alleged disability onset ...

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.