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.

Mashburn v. Berryhill

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division

June 13, 2018

MARK MASHBURN, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [1]

          JOEL B. TOOMEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         THIS CAUSE is before the undersigned on Plaintiff's appeal of an administrative decision denying his applications for a Period of Disability, Disability Insurance Benefits, and Supplemental Security Income. In a decision dated July 21, 2016, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) found that Plaintiff had not been under a disability, within the meaning of the Social Security Act, from February 15, 2008, the alleged disability onset date, through the date of decision. (Tr. 24-35.) Having considered the parties' memoranda and being otherwise fully advised, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that the Commissioner's decision be REVERSED and REMANDED for further administrative proceedings.

         I. Issues on Appeal

         Plaintiff makes the following arguments on appeal:

I. The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) failed to apply the correct legal standards to Dr. Wylie's opinion.
II. The ALJ failed to apply the correct legal standards to Dr. Baptiste-Boles' opinion.

(Doc. 16 at 2.)

         II. Standard of Review

         As the Eleventh Circuit has stated:

In Social Security appeals, we must determine whether the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards. Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. We may not decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute our judgment for that of the [Commissioner].

Winschel v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011) (citations and quotations omitted). “With respect to the Commissioner's legal conclusions, however, our review is de novo.” Lewis v. Barnhart, 285 F.3d 1329, 1330 (11th Cir. 2002).

         III. The ALJ's Decision

         At step two of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the severe impairments of “affective disorder; anxiety-related disorder; disorders of the spine; monovision (blind in right eye); and osteoarthritis.”[2] (Tr. 26.) At step three, the ALJ found that Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled a listing. (Tr. 26-28.) Prior to step four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform sedentary or light work, with additional restrictions, including the mental restrictions that “he needs simple tasks with low stress and no production line; he needs to avoid contact with the public and coworkers (i.e., performing tasks that do not require assistance from others and that do not require him to assist others).” (Tr. 28.) At step four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was unable to perform any of his past relevant work. (Tr. 33.) However, at step five, the ALJ found that jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform. (Tr. 34-35.) Therefore, Plaintiff was not disabled. (Tr. 35.)

         IV. ...


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.