United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Northwestern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
C. BURKE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
February 12, 2017, plaintiff Kanisha Lampkin filed a
complaint (Doc. 1) seeking judicial review of an adverse
final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration (“the Commissioner”) pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Plaintiff later filed an amended
complaint (Doc. 4). On August 25, 2017, plaintiff filed a
Fact and Law Summary (Doc. 10). On September 22, 2017 the
Commissioner filed a Fact and Law Summary (Doc. 11).
Therefore, this matter is ripe for review. For the reasons
stated below, the final decision of the Commissioner is
September 26, 2013, plaintiff protectively filed an
application for a period of disability and disability
insurance benefits; plaintiff also filed an application for
supplemental social security income on the same day. (Doc.
10, p. 3). In both applications, plaintiff alleged disability
beginning on April 22, 2013. (Id.). On July 10,
2015, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”), J.
Dennis Reap, conducted a video hearing from Franklin,
Tennessee. (Tr. 31). Plaintiff, her attorney, and a
vocational expert (“VE”) were present at the
hearing. (Id.). On September 3, 2015, the ALJ issued
his decision. In doing so, the ALJ engaged in the five-step
sequential evaluation process promulgated by the Commission
to determine whether an individual is disabled. (Id.
at 12-24). The ALJ made the following findings:
1. Plaintiff meets the insured status requirements of the
Social Security Act through December 31, 2017. (Id.
2. Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity
since April 22, 2013, the alleged onset date. (Id.).
3. Plaintiff has the following severe impairments: spine
disorders; migraines; affective disorder; and anxiety
4. Plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of
one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart
P, Appendix 1. (Id. at 15).
5. Plaintiff has the residual functioning capacity
(“RFC”) to perform light work as defined in 20
C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except that
she is limited to understanding, remembering, carrying out,
and performing simple, routine, repetitive 1-2 tasks;
occasional interaction with coworkers and supervisors; no
public interaction; better working with things rather than
people; and can adapt to occasional changes in work routines.
(Id. at 17).
6. Plaintiff is capable of performing past relevant work as
an assembler. This work does not require the performance of
work-related activities precluded by plaintiff's RFC.
(Id. at 22).
7. Plaintiff has not been under a disability, as defined in
the Social Security Act, from April 22, 2013 through the date
of his decision on September 3, 2015. (Id. at
requested an appeal to the Appeals Council, which denied her
request for review on December 12, 2016. (Tr. 1). At that
point, the ALJ's decision became the final decision of
the Commissioner. Henry v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.,
802 F.3d 1264, 1267 (11th Cir. 2015). Plaintiff then filed
this action on February 12, 2017. (Doc. 1).
Social Security Act authorizes payment of disability
insurance benefits and supplemental social security income to
persons with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423, 1381
(2012). The law defines disability as the “inability to
do any substantial gainful activity by reason of any
medically determinable physical or mental impairment which
can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can
be expected ...