United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Northern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
BRADLEY MURRAY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff
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 denying his claims for
a period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and
supplemental security income. 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. (Docs. 21 & 22 (“In accordance with
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.”)). Upon consideration
of the administrative record, Plaintiff's brief, and the
Commissioner's brief, [1] it is determined that the
Commissioner's decision denying benefits should be
reversed and remanded for further proceedings not
inconsistent with this decision.[2]
I.
Procedural Background
Plaintiff
filed applications for a period of disability, disability
insurance benefits, and supplemental security income on April
13, 2012, alleging disability beginning on April 12, 2012.
(See Tr. 184-193.) Brownlow's claims were
initially denied on July 3, 2012 (Tr. 130, 137 & 144-50)
and, following Plaintiff's July 12, 2012 request for a
hearing before an Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) (Tr. 153-54), a hearing was conducted
before an ALJ on August 22, 2013 (Tr.101-29). On December 20,
2013, the ALJ issued a decision finding that the claimant was
not disabled and (Tr. 91-97) and, thereafter, the Appeals
Council denied Plaintiff's request for review on June 9,
2015 (Tr. 1-4). Plaintiff appealed the administrative denial
of his claims to this Court; a remand was ordered
(see Tr. 447-471). Following remand, a supplemental
hearing was conducted on August 16, 2016. (Tr. 413-446.) On
February 9, 2017, the ALJ issued another decision finding
that Brownlow was not entitled to a period of disability,
disability insurance benefits, or supplemental security
income. (Tr. 398-407.) More specifically, the ALJ again
proceeded to the fifth step of the five-step sequential
evaluation process and determined that Brownlow retains the
residual functional capacity to perform those jobs identified
by the vocational expert (“VE”) during the
supplemental administrative hearing (compare Id. at
406 with Tr. 441-42). Sometime thereafter, the
Plaintiff appealed the ALJ's unfavorable decision to the
Appeals Council; the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's
request for review on February 21, 2018. (Tr. 363-66.) Thus,
the hearing decision became the final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security.
Plaintiff
alleges disability due to a cataract, hypertension, vision
loss with pain in the eyes, headaches, depression, left
shoulder pain radiating from the neck, neck pain with
radiculopathy, bilateral granulomatous anterior uveitis,
bilateral lacrimal gland enlargement, possible sarcoidosis,
and angle closure glaucoma with iris bombe and synechiae. The
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) made the following relevant
findings:
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments:
cataract in right eye and recurrent iritis in the right eye
(20 CFR 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c)).
4. 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 404.1520(d), 404.1525,
404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926).
5. After careful consideration of the entire record,
I find that the claimant has the residual functional capacity
to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels but
with the following nonexertional limitations: the claimant
can perform no work requiring binocular vision. The claimant
has sufficient visual acuity to handle and work with large
objects and he can avoid workplace hazards.
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past
relevant work (20 CFR 404.1565 and 416.965).
7. The claimant was born on July 24, 1979 and was 32
years old, which is defined as a younger individual age
18-49, on the alleged disability onset date (20 CFR 404.1563
and 416.963).
8. The claimant has at least a high school education
and is able to communicate in English (20 CFR 404.1564 and
416.964).
9. Transferability of job skills is not material to
the determination of disability because using the
Medical-Vocational Rules as a framework supports a finding
that the claimant is “not disabled, ” whether or
not the claimant has transferable job skills (See SSR 82-41
and 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2).
10. Considering the claimant's age, education,
work experience, and residual functional capacity, there are
jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national
economy that the claimant can perform (20 CFR 404.1569,
404.1569(a), 416.969, and 416.969(a)).
11. The claimant has not been under a disability, as
defined in the Social Security Act, from April 12, 2012,
through the date of this decision (20 CFR ...