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.

Ward v. Berryhill

United States District Court, District of Columbia

March 31, 2017

KEEVA A. WARD, 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 for all purposes. See 03/01/2016 Minute Order.[2]Currently pending for determination are Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment of Reversal ("Plaintiff's Motion") (ECFNo. 13) and Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and in Opposition to Motion for Judgment of Reversal ("Defendant's Motion") (ECF No. 14). Upon consideration of the motions, the memoranda in support thereof and in opposition thereto, the administrative record ("AR") (ECF No. 10), and the entire record herein, Plaintiff's motion will be granted in part, and Defendant's motion will be denied.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Keeva Ward 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, 42 U.S.C. §§401 et seq. ("SSA"). Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Judgment of Reversal ("Plaintiffs Memorandum") (ECF No. 13-1) at 1.

         Procedural History

          On July 26, 2011, Plaintiff applied for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") and Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB"), alleging a disability, which began on September 1, 2009. Id. at 2. Her claims were denied initially and upon reconsideration. Id.

         Thereafter, Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing that took place on November 26, 2012. AR at 15. On December 19, 2012, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") issued his determination, finding that Plaintiff was not disabled. Id. at 15-24. On January 17, 2014, Plaintiffs request for review of the ALJ's December 19, 2012 decision was denied. See Plaintiff's Memorandum at 2.

         Summary of the ALJ's Ruling

          On December 19, 2012, the ALJ issued a written opinion, wherein he ultimately concluded that Plaintiff (referred to by the ALJ as "the claimant") was "not disabled under section 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act." AR at 24. 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, 2014.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since September 1, 2009, the alleged onset date.
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: diabetes mellitus (DM) with peripheral neuropathy; obesity, bipolar disorder; post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD); and a history of alcohol dependence disorder, currently in remission.
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 light work, as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) with the following additional limitations: pushing and pulling are limited to the light level; no foot control operations; no climbing of ladders, ropes or scaffolds; no more than occasional climbing of ramps or stairs, balancing, stooping, crouching, kneeling or crawling; no more than frequent bilateral handling, fingering, and feeling; with no exposure to extreme heat or cold, excessive vibrations, or hazards, such as moving machinery and unprotected heights. The claimant is limited to simple, routine, repetitive tasks, in low-stress job (defined as having no more than occasional decision-making required and no more than occasional changes in the work setting), with no production rate or paced work (such as would be done on an assembly line). The claimant should have no more than occasional interaction with the public or co-workers, and such interaction is limited to superficial interaction (such as brief greeting or exchange of information), and/or interaction that is incidental to the work being performed.
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work.
7. The claimant was born on August 17, 1969, and was 40 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.