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.

Jacob v. Berryhill

United States District Court, District of Columbia

March 30, 2017

CHARLES JACOB JR., Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, [1] Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          DEBORAH A. ROBINSON United States Magistrate Judge

         This case was assigned to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for all purposes. See 06/23/2015 Referral (ECF No. 12).[2] Currently for determination by the undersigned are Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment ("Plaintiffs Motion") (ECF No. 15) and Defendant's Motion for Judgment of Affirmance and in Opposition to Motion for Judgment of Reversal ("Defendant's Motion") (ECF No. 16). Upon consideration of the motions, the memoranda in support thereof and in opposition thereto, the administrative record ("AR") (ECF No. 6), and the entire record herein, Plaintiffs motion will be granted in part and denied in part, and Defendant's motion will be denied.[3]

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Charles Jacob Jr. brings this action seeking judicial review of a final decision by Defendant Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, pursuant to Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act, 42U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq. ("SSA"). Plaintiffs Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff s Motion for Summary Judgment ("Plaintiffs Memorandum") (ECF No. 15) at 1.

         Procedural History

         On April 26, 2011, Plaintiff applied for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") and Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB"), alleging disability since January 1, 2000. AR at 180-87, 203. His claims were denied initially and upon reconsideration. AR at 73-115.

         Thereafter, Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing, which took place on June 3, 2013. AR at 15. On August 8, 2013, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") issued a determination, finding that Plaintiff was not disabled. ARat29. On February 2, 2015, the Commissioner denied Plaintiffs request for a review of the ALJ's decision. AR at 1.

         Summary of the ALJ's Ruling

         On August 8, 2013, the ALJ issued a written opinion, concluding that Plaintiff (referred to by the ALJ as "the claimant") was "not disabled under section 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act." ARat29. Specifically, the ALJ made the following eleven summary findings:

1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2000.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since January 1, 2000, the alleged onset date.
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease and affective disorder.
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.
5. After careful consideration of the entire record, I find that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform simple, unskilled (SVP 1 or SVP 2) light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b).
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work.
7. The claimant was born on December 11, 1964, and was 35 years old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on ...

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.