Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Orange v. Berryhill

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division

February 26, 2018

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.



         Plaintiff Tyrone Orange brings this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”) denying his claim for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”), based on disability, under Title XVI of the Act. The parties have consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), for all proceedings in this Court. (Doc. 20 (“In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73, the parties in this case consent to have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct any and all proceedings in this case, … order the entry of a final judgment, and conduct all post-judgment proceedings.”)). See also Doc. 22. Upon consideration of the administrative record, Orange's brief, the Commissioner's brief, and the arguments made at the hearing on January 30, 2018 before the undersigned Magistrate Judge, it is determined that the Commissioner's decision denying benefits should be affirmed.[1]


         Orange applied for SSI, based on disability, under Title XVI of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1383d, on April 3, 2014, alleging disability beginning on October 19, 1990. (Tr. 169). His application was denied at the initial level of administrative review on July 9, 2014. (Tr. 86). On August 11, 2014, Orange requested a hearing by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). (Tr. 93). During the initial hearing that was held on December 18, 2015, the ALJ stated that she would order a consultative psychological evaluation of Orange. (Tr. 62). After the evaluation was performed, a supplemental hearing was held on May 17, 2016. (Tr. 37). After the hearing, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision finding that Orange was not under a disability from the date the application was filed through the date of the decision, October 28, 2016. (Tr. 17-31). Orange appealed the ALJ's decision to the Appeals Council, and, on May 16, 2017, the Appeals Council denied his request for review of the ALJ's decision, thereby making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. (Tr. 1-5).

         After exhausting his administrative remedies, Orange sought judicial review in this Court, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c). (Doc. 1). The Commissioner filed an answer and the social security transcript on September 18, 2017. (Docs. 10, 11). Both parties filed briefs setting forth their respective positions. (Docs. 12, 18). Oral argument was held on January 30, 2017. (Doc. 21). The case is now ripe for decision.


         Orange alleges that the ALJ's decision to deny him benefits is in error for the following reason:

         1. The ALJ erred by failing to properly evaluate whether his impairment is of a severity to meet or equal Listing 12.05C. (Doc. 12 at pp. 1-2).


         Orange was born on October 19, 1982, and was 31 years old at the time he filed his claim for benefits. (Tr. 185). Orange initially alleged disability due to emotional issues and mental retardation. (Tr.190, 195). Orange was in special education classes and dropped out of school after 8th grade. (Tr. 191). He has never worked. (Tr. 190).[2] Orange handles his personal care (although there is some evidence not always well). (Tr. 198; 315). He has never cooked or done any inside or outside household chores. (Tr. 199-200). He does not have a driver's license because he cannot read. (Tr. 200). He stated that he spends time on a daily basis walking, watching television, or playing basketball. (Tr. 201). He stated in his Function Report that he has problems getting along with family, friends, and others because he gets confused and very depressed and that he has problems paying attention, following instructions, and getting along with authority figures. (Tr. 202-03). After conducting two hearings, the ALJ made a determination that Orange had not been under a disability during the relevant time period, and thus, was not entitled to benefits. (Tr.17-31).


         After considering all of the evidence, the ALJ made the following findings that are relevant to the issues presented in her November 2, 2016 decision:

1. The claimant has the following severe impairments: borderline intellectual functioning; personality disorder; and history of substance abuse, not material (20 CFR 416.920(c)).
The claimant's impairments are severe because they impose upon him more than minimal functional limitations.
2. 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 416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926).
The objective record before the undersigned fails to contain the objective findings and clinical signs set forth in any of the listing sections pertaining to the claimant's severe impairments.
The severity of the claimant's mental impairments, considered singly and in combination, do not meet or medically equal the criteria of ...

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.