United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Northwestern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION [1]
STACI
G. CORNELIUS U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
The
plaintiff, Troy Lovell, appeals from the decision of the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the
“Commissioner”) denying his application for
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). Lovell
timely pursued and exhausted his administrative remedies, and
the Commissioner's decision is ripe for review pursuant
to 42 U.S.C § 1383(c)(3). For the reasons discussed
below, the Commissioner's decision is due to be affirmed.
I.
Procedural History
Lovell
has a tenth-grade education and previously worked as a
construction worker. (Tr. at 26, 164). In his application for
SSI, Lovell alleged he became disabled on July 1, 2015, due
to rheumatoid arthritis, weakness and numbness in both hands,
and “bad nerves.” (Id. at 163). Lovell
later amended the alleged onset date of his disability to
April 8, 2016. (Id. at 19). After his claim was
denied, Lovell requested a hearing before an administrative
law judge (“ALJ”). (Id.). Following a
hearing, the ALJ denied Lovell's claim. (Id. at
19-28). Lovell was fifty-four years old when the ALJ issued
his decision. (Id. at 27, 28). After the Appeals
Council denied review of the ALJ's decision (id.
at 1-3), that decision became the final decision of the
Commissioner, see Frye v. Massanari, 209 F.Supp.2d
1246, 1251 (N.D. Ala. 2001) (citing Falge v. Apfel,
150 F.3d 1320, 1322 (11th Cir. 1998)). Thereafter, Lovell
commenced this action. (Doc. 1).
II.
Statutory and Regulatory Framework
To
establish eligibility for disability benefits, a claimant
must show “the inability to engage in 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 to last for a
continuous period of not less than twelve months.” 42
U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 416.905(a).
The Social Security Administration (“SSA”)
employs a five-step sequential analysis to determine an
individual's eligibility for disability benefits. 20
C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4).
First,
the Commissioner must determine whether the claimant is
engaged in “substantial gainful activity.”
Id. at § 416.920(a)(4)(i). If the claimant is
engaged in substantial gainful activity, the Commissioner
will find the claimant is not disabled. Id. at
§ 416.920(a)(4)(i) and (b). At the first step, the ALJ
determined Lovell has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since April 8, 2016. (Tr. at 21).
If the
claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, the
Commissioner must next determine whether the claimant suffers
from a severe physical or mental impairment or combination of
impairments that has lasted or is expected to last for a
continuous period of at least twelve months. 20 C.F.R. §
416.920(a)(4)(ii). If the claimant does not have a severe
impairment or combination of impairments, the Commissioner
will find the claimant is not disabled. Id. at
§ 416.920(a)(4)(ii) and (c). At the second step, the ALJ
determined Lovell has the following severe impairments:
degenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis, anxiety disorder,
and major depressive disorder. (Tr. at 21).
If the
claimant has a severe impairment or combination of
impairments, the Commissioner must then determine whether the
impairment meets or equals one of the “Listings”
found in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R.
§ 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If the claimant's impairment
meets or equals one of the Listings, the Commissioner will
find the claimant is disabled. Id. at §
416.920(a)(4)(iii) and (d). At the third step, the ALJ
determined Lovell does not have an impairment or combination
of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of
one of the Listings. (Tr. at 21).
If the
claimant's impairment does not meet or equal one of the
Listings, the Commissioner must determine the claimant's
residual functional capacity (“RFC”) before
proceeding to the fourth step. 20 C.F.R § 416.920(e). At
the fourth step, the Commissioner will compare an assessment
of the claimant's RFC with the physical and mental
demands of the claimant's past relevant work.
Id. at § 416.920(a)(4)(iv) and (e). If the
claimant is capable of performing his or her past relevant
work, the Commissioner will find the claimant is not
disabled. Id. at § 416.920(a)(4)(iv).
Before
proceeding to the fourth step, the ALJ determined Lovell has
the RFC to perform a limited range of medium work. (Tr. at
23).[2]
At the fourth step, the ALJ determined Lovell is not able to
perform his past relevant work. (Id. at 26).
If the
claimant is unable to perform his past relevant work, the
Commissioner must finally determine whether the claimant is
capable of performing work that exists in substantial numbers
in the national economy in light of the claimant's RFC,
age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §
416.920(a)(4)(v) and (g)(1). If the claimant is capable of
performing other work, the Commissioner will find the
claimant is not disabled. Id. at §
416.920(a)(4)(v) and (g)(1). If the claimant is not capable
of performing other work, the Commissioner will find the
claimant is disabled. Id. at § 416.920(a)(4)(v)
and (g)(1).
At the
fifth step, considering Lovell's age, education, work
experience, and RFC, the ALJ determined there are jobs that
exist in significant numbers in the national economy that
Lovell can perform, such as those of dish washer, janitor,
and hand packager. (Tr. at 27). Therefore, the ALJ concluded
Lovell is not disabled. (Id. at 28).
III.
Stan ...