United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION [1]
STACI
G. CORNELIUS U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The
plaintiff, Stacy Embry, appeals from the decision of the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the
“Commissioner”) denying her applications for
Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). Embry
timely pursued and exhausted her administrative remedies, and
the Commissioner's decision is ripe for review pursuant
to 42 U.S.C §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). For the
reasons discussed below, the Commissioner's decision is
due to be reversed and remanded.
I.
Procedural History
Embry
completed the ninth grade and later obtained her GED. (Tr. at
391). She has previously been employed as an office helper, a
pizza delivery driver, a telephone operator, and a waitress.
(Id. at 25, 38-40, 189-90). In her applications for
DIB and SSI, Embry alleged she became disabled on January 1,
2014, due to multiple strokes. (Id. at 78, 92). She
later amended the alleged onset date of her disability to
June 28, 2015. (Id. at 18). After her claims were
denied, Embry requested a hearing before an administrative
law judge (“ALJ”). (Id. at 124).
Following a hearing, the ALJ denied Embry's claims.
(Id. at 18-27). Embry was forty-three years old when
the ALJ issued his decision. (Id. at 26-27). After
the Appeals Council denied review of the ALJ's decision
(id. at 1-4), 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, Embry 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. §§ 416(i)(1)(A), 423(d)(1)(A),
1382c(a)(3)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1505(a),
416.905(a). Furthermore, a claimant must show she was
disabled between her alleged initial onset date and her date
last insured. Mason v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 430
Fed.Appx. 830, 831 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Moore v.
Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1209, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005);
Demandre v. Califano, 591 F.2d 1088, 1090 (5th Cir.
1979)). The Social Security Administration
(“SSA”) employs a five-step sequential analysis
to determine an individual's eligibility for disability
benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4),
416.920(a)(4).
First,
the Commissioner must determine whether the claimant is
engaged in “substantial gainful activity.”
Id. at §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i),
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 §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i)
and (b), 416.920(a)(4)(i) and (b). At the first step, the ALJ
determined Embry met the SSA's insured status
requirements through September 30, 2016, and has not engaged
in substantial gainful activity since June 28, 2015. (Tr. at
20).
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.
§§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 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 §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) and
(c), 416.920(a)(4)(ii) and (c). At the second step, the ALJ
determined Embry has the following severe impairments: (1)
residual effects of multiple cerebral vascular accidents and
(2) neurocognitive disorder. (Id. at 20).
If the
claimant has a severe impairment or combination of
impairments, the Commissioner must then determine whether the
impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals one
of the “Listings” found in 20 C.F.R. Part 404,
Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii). If the
claimant's impairment or combination of impairments meets
or equals one of the Listings, the Commissioner will find the
claimant is disabled. Id. at §§
404.1520(a)(4)(iii) and (d), 416.920(a)(4)(iii) and (d). At
the third step, the ALJ determined Embry 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 or combination of impairments 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. §§ 404.1520(e), 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
§§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) and (e), 416.920(a)(4)(iv)
and (e). If the claimant is capable of performing her past
relevant work, the Commissioner will find the claimant is not
disabled. Id. at §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv),
416.920(a)(4)(iv).
Before
proceeding to the fourth step, the ALJ determined Embry has
the RFC to perform a limited range of light work. (Tr. at
22-23).[2] At the fourth step, the ALJ determined
Embry is not able to perform her past relevant work.
(Id. at 25).
If the
claimant is unable to perform her past relevant work, the
Commissioner must finally determine whether the claimant is
capable of performing other 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. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v) and (g)(1),
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 §§
404.1520(a)(4)(v) and (g)(1), 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 §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v) and (g)(1),
416.920(a)(4)(v) and (g)(1).
At the
fifth step, considering Embry's age, education, work
experience, and RFC, the ALJ determined there are jobs
existing in significant numbers in the national economy that
Embry can perform, such as those of marker, cleaner, and
power screwdriver operator. (Tr. at 26). Therefore, the ALJ
concluded Embry is not disabled. (Id. at 27).
III.
Stan ...