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.

Leach v. Berryhill

United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Pensacola Division

February 16, 2018

ALICIA MARIE LEACH, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, [1] Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          ORDER, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This case has been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72.1(A), 72.2(D) and 72.3 of this court relating to review of administrative determinations under the Social Security Act (“Act”) and related statutes, 42 U.S.C. § 401, et seq. It is now before the court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Act for review of a final determination of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-34, and for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits under Title XVI of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-83.

         Upon review of the record before this court, it is the opinion of the undersigned that the findings of fact and determinations of the Commissioner are supported by substantial evidence; thus, the decision of the Commissioner should be affirmed.

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On May 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed applications for DIB and SSI, and in both applications she alleged disability beginning August 1, 2010 (Tr. 17).[2] Her applications were denied initially and on reconsideration, and thereafter Plaintiff requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”). A hearing was held on September 24, 2014, and on December 3, 2014, the ALJ issued a decision in which she found Plaintiff “not disabled, ” as defined under the Act, at any time through the date of her decision (Tr. 17-29). On June 9, 2016, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review (Tr. 1). Thus, the decision of the ALJ stands as the final decision of the Commissioner, subject to review in this court. Ingram v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 496 F.3d 1253, 1262 (11th Cir. 2007).

         II. FINDINGS OF THE ALJ

         On December 3, 2014 (date of ALJ decision), the ALJ made several findings relative to the issues raised in this appeal (Tr. 17-29):

1) Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Act through December 31, 2016;[3]
2) Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since August 1, 2010, the alleged onset date;
3) Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: status post spinal fusion, depression, and anxiety;
4) Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1;
5) Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform sedentary work as defined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a) except Plaintiff was limited to work which would only require her to: occasionally climb ramps/stairs; never climb ladders/ropes/scaffolds; occasionally stoop, crouch and crawl; occasionally have exposure to vibrations and mechanical moving parts; and understand, remember and carry out simple routine and repetitive tasks;
6) Plaintiff was unable to perform any past relevant work;
7) Plaintiff was born on August 29, 1978, and was 31 years old, which is defined as a younger individual aged between 18 and 44, on the alleged disability onset date;
8) Plaintiff had a marginal education and was able to communicate in English;
9) Transferability of job skills was not material to the determination of disability because using the Medical Vocational Rules as a framework supported a finding that Plaintiff is “not disabled, ” whether or not Plaintiff had transferable job skills;
10) Considering Plaintiff's age, education, work experience, and RFC, there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform;
11) Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined in the Act, from August 1, 2010, through the ...

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.