Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Marbury v. Saul

United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Northeastern Division

September 10, 2019

CALVIN JAMES MARBURY, Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          LILES C. BURKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         On June 25, 2017 plaintiff filed a complaint 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) (Doc. 1). Defendant filed an answer on October 15, 2018 (Doc. 8). On November 30, 2018 plaintiff filed a brief in support of disability and a motion to remand (Docs. 11 & 13). The case was stayed on December 27, 2018 due a lapse of government appropriations (Doc. 16). On January 28, 2019 the Commissioner filed a Memorandum in Support of Commissioner's Decision and response to plaintiff's motion to remand (Docs. 18 & 19). Therefore, this matter is ripe for review. For the reasons stated below, the final decision of the Commissioner reversed and remanded.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On June 11, 2015 plaintiff filed application for benefits under Title XVI for supplemental security income (SSI) under the Social Security Act alleging March 1, 2015, as his onset of disability. On April 25, 2017 the administrative law judge (“ALJ”), Bruce W. MacKenzie, conducted a video hearing. The ALJ presided in Birmingham, Alabama and the plaintiff appeared in Gadsden, Alabama. (Tr. 26-38). Plaintiff, his attorney, and a vocational expert (“VE”) were present at the hearing. (Id.) On October 3, 2017 the ALJ issued his decision. (Id.) In doing so, the ALJ engaged in the five-step sequential evaluation process promulgated by the Commissioner to determine whether an individual is disabled. (Id.) The ALJ made the following findings:

1. The claimant engaged in substantial gainful activity during the following periods: July 2016 through September 2016 (20 CFR 416.920(b) and 416.971 et seq.) (Id. at 28).
2. However, there has been a continuous 12-month period during which the claimant did not engage in substantial gainful activity. The remaining findings address the period(s) the claimant did not engage in substantial gainful activity. (Id. at 29).
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: status post non-ST elevation myocardial infarction; coronary artery disease; hypertension; history of mild degenerative joint disease of the right shoulder; and, borderline intellectual functioning (20 CFR 416.920(c)). (Id.)
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 416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926). (Id.)
5. After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the claimant has had the residual functional capacity, generally, to perform light exertional work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(b). The undersigned further finds, however, that the full range of light work that could be performed by the claimant is reduced by the following functional limitations: the claimant could frequently use right dominant hand controls. He can frequently reach overhead with the right dominant hand as well as frequently reach in all other directions with the right dominant hand. He can frequently climb ramps and stairs, but never climb ladders or scaffolds. He can frequently balance, stoop, crouch, kneel and crawl. He would be limited to hearing and understanding simple oral instructions and communicating simple information and he would be unable to provide written reports or analyze written materials. He is unable to make simple arithmetic calculations including transactions involving currency. The claimant should never be exposed to unprotected heights, dangerous machinery, dangerous tools, hazardous processes or operate commercial motor vehicles. The undersigned further finds that the claimant would be limited to simple tasks and simple work-related decisions. He would be unable to perform at production rate pace, but could do goal oriented work. In addition to normal workday breaks, he would be off-task 5% of an 8-hour workday (non-consecutive minutes). (Id. at 33).
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work (20 CFR 416.965). (Id. at 36).
7. The claimant was born on April 17, 1967 and was 48 years old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the date the application was filed (20 CFR 416.963). (Id.)
8. The claimant has a limited education and is able to communicate in English (20 CFR 416.964). (Id.).
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). (Id.)
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 ...

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.