Thompson v. Berryhill

          OPINION AND ORDER

          MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on a Complaint [DE 1], filed by Plaintiff Leila Tyrina Thompson on February 13, 2018, and Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Reversing the Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security [DE 15], filed on June 8, 2018. Plaintiff requests that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge be reversed and remanded for further proceedings. On August 16, 2018, the Commissioner filed a response, and Plaintiff filed a reply on September 6, 2018.

         I. Background

         On August 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, alleging that she became disabled on February 25, 2014. Plaintiff's applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration. On October 14, 2016, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Kathleen Kadlec held a hearing at which Plaintiff, with an attorney representative, and a vocational expert (“VE”) testified. On March 7, 2017, the ALJ issued a decision finding that Plaintiff was not disabled, and Plaintiff appealed the decision.

         The ALJ made the following findings under the required five-step analysis:

1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2010.

2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since February 25, 2014, the alleged onset date.

3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: multiple sclerosis and obesity.

4. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one the listed impairments in 20 CFR 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.

5. The claimant has the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform sedentary work except frequently reach overhead bilaterally; frequently climb ramps and stairs; never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; frequently balance, stoop, kneel, and crawl; never work at unprotected heights; never be exposed to moving mechanical parts; never operate a motor vehicle; never be exposed to dust, odors, fumes, or pulmonary irritants; never work in extreme heat; and be limited to moderate noise levels.

6. The claimant is capable of performing past relevant work as a telephone solicitor and receptionist. This work does not require the performance of work-related activities precluded by the claimant's residual functional capacity.

7. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from February 25, 2014, through the date of the decision.

         The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review, leaving the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner.

         The parties filed forms of consent to have this case assigned to a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings and to order the entry of a final judgment in this case. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to decide ...