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.

Mayor v. Saul

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

August 2, 2019

SHERI MAYOR, Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, [1] Defendant.

          ORDER

          AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Sheri Mayor seeks judicial review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) denying her claim for disability insurance benefits (DIB) under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g). After reviewing the record, including a transcript of the proceedings before the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), administrative record, pleadings, and joint memorandum the parties submitted, the Commissioner's decision is REMANDED for further consideration consistent with this order.

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Ms. Mayor applied for DIB benefits because of a disability she claims began on October 1, 2014. (Tr. 174-77). Disability examiners denied Ms. Mayor's application initially and after reconsideration. (Tr. 61-70, 73-86). Ms. Mayor then requested a hearing before an ALJ, who found Ms. Mayor not disabled. (Tr. 16-22, 101-02).

         The Appeals Council denied Ms. Mayor's request for review of the ALJ's decision; so, the ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner. (Tr. 1-6). Ms. Mayor seeks judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision. (Doc. 1).

         II. NATURE OF DISABILITY CLAIM

         A. Background

         Ms. Mayor was forty-six years old when she submitted her DIB application, and she was forty-eight years old when the ALJ held the hearing. (Tr. 33, 174). Ms. Mayor has some college education, including a medical-assisting degree. (Tr. 33). She has past relevant work as an investigator, instructor, and medical assistant. (Tr. 56). She claimed disability because of “severe cervical spinal stenosis” and severe migraines. (Tr. 61).

         B. Summary of the ALJ's Decision

         The ALJ must follow five steps when evaluating a claim for disability.[2]20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). First, if a claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity, [3] she is not disabled. § 404.1520(b). Second, if a claimant has no impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limit her physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities, then she has no severe impairment and is not disabled. § 404.1520(c); see McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026, 1031 (11th Cir. 1986) (stating step two acts as a filter and “allows only claims based on the most trivial impairments to be rejected”). Third, if a claimant's impairments fail to meet or equal an impairment included in the Listings, she is not disabled. § 404.1520(d); 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1. Fourth, if a claimant's impairments do not prevent her from performing past relevant work, she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). At this fourth step, the ALJ determines the claimant's residual functional capacity (RFC).[4] Fifth, if a claimant's impairments (considering her RFC, age, education, and past work) do not prevent her from performing other work that exists in the national economy, then she is not disabled. § 404.1520(g).

         Here, the ALJ determined Ms. Mayor engaged in no substantial gainful activity since her alleged onset date. (Tr. 18). The ALJ found Ms. Mayor has a severe impairment: degenerative disc disease. (Id.). Nonetheless, the ALJ found Ms. Mayor has no impairment that meets or medically equals the severity of an impairment included in the Listings. (Tr. 19) (citations omitted).

         The ALJ then found Ms. Mayor has the RFC to perform sedentary work, which includes the following abilities:

[T]he ability to lift and/or carry 10 pounds occasionally and frequently and stand and/or walk 3 hours and sit 6 hours in an 8hour workday. She may occasionally climb ramps/stairs, climb ladders/ropes/scaffolds, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl. Finally, [Ms. Mayor] must avoid concentrated exposure to heat, cold, vibration and hazards and is limited to only frequent handling and fingering with both hands.

(Tr. 19) (citation omitted). Based on these findings, the ALJ determined Ms. Mayor could perform her past relevant work as an investigator. (Tr. 22). The ALJ therefore found Ms. Mayor not disabled from her alleged onset date through the date of the ALJ's decision (July 6, 2017). (Tr. 22).

         III. ANALYSIS

         A. Standard of Review

         Review of the ALJ's decision is limited to determining whether the ALJ applied correct legal standards and whether substantial evidence supports his findings. McRoberts v. Bowen, 841 F.2d 1077, 1080 (11th Cir. 1988); Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390 (1971). Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance. Dale v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). In other words, there must be sufficient evidence for a ...


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.