Vergos v. Berryhill

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          P. BRADLEY MURRAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Nick Michael Vergos brings this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his claim for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. 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. 19 (“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.”); see also Doc. 20 (endorsed order of reference by District Judge Terry F. Moorer)). Upon consideration of the administrative record, Plaintiff's brief, the Commissioner's brief, and the parties' arguments at the May 20, 2019 hearing before the undersigned, the Court concludes that the Commissioner's decision denying benefits should be reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision.^[1]

         I. Procedural Background

         Plaintiff protectively filed an application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits on or about January 30, 2015, alleging disability beginning on March 26, 2014. (See Tr. 220-26.) Vergos' claim was initially denied on April 20, 2015 (Tr. 124 & 141-45) and, following Plaintiff's June 17, 2015 written request for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) (see Tr. 148-49), a hearing was conducted before an ALJ on September 9, 2016 (Tr. 101-17). On April 13, 2017, the ALJ issued a decision finding that the claimant was not disabled and, therefore, not entitled to disability insurance benefits. (Tr. 51-79.) More specifically, the ALJ determined that Vergos retains the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b), with minimal limitations, and can, therefore, perform his past relevant light work as a music teacher specialist (see Id. at 60 & 77). On May 31, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed the ALJ's unfavorable decision to the Appeals Council (Tr. 215); the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review on May 9, 2018 (Tr. 1-4). Thus, the hearing decision became the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security.

         Plaintiff alleges disability due to degenerative disc disease, chronic pain syndrome, major depressive disorder, and attention deficit disorder. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) made the following relevant findings:

3. The claimant has the following severe impairment: degenerative disc disease (20 CFR 404.1520(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, and 404.1526).

. . .

5. After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b), except only occasional climbing, balancing and stooping; no kneeling, crouching or crawling; and no exposure to unprotected heights or hazardous machinery.

. . .

6. The claimant is capable of performing past relevant work as a music teacher specialist. This work does not require the performance of work-related activities precluded by the claimant's residual functional capacity (20 CFR 404.1565).

. . .

7. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from March 26, 2014, through the date of ...