United States District Court, District of Columbia
ANNETTE M. KENNER, Plaintiff,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Deputy Commissioner for Operations, performing the duties and functions not reserved to the Commissioner of Social Security,  Defendant.
DEBORAH A. ROBINSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Annette M. Kenner, pursuant to Section 405(g) of the Social
Security Act (the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§
401 et seq., seeks judicial review of a final decision of the
Defendant denying her application for disability insurance
action was assigned to the undersigned United States
Magistrate Judge for all purposes. See 06/16/2017 Referral.
Now pending for determination are Plaintiff's Amended
Motion for Judgment of Reversal (“Plaintiff's
Amended Motion”) (ECF No. 29) and Defendant's
Motion for Judgment of Affirmance (ECF No. 16). Upon
consideration of the motions, the memoranda in support
thereof and in opposition thereto (ECF Nos. 30, 33, 34, 35),
the administrative record (“AR”) (ECF No. 7), and
the entire record herein, Plaintiff's amended motion will
be granted, and Defendant's motion will be denied.
February 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed the application for
benefits which is the subject of the HOD at issue in this
action. AR at 22. In that application, Plaintiff claimed
“hypothyroidism, headaches, [hypertension], GI
problems, and a visual impairment” with an alleged
onset date of January 1, 2008. Id. at 82-91. The
Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denied
Plaintiff's application initially and upon
reconsideration. Id. at 95, 113. Thereafter,
Plaintiff requested a hearing, see AR at 118, and appeared
before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) on
January 30, 2015. Id. at 37. On March 26, 2015, the
ALJ issued her determination, finding that Plaintiff was not
disabled. Id. at 22-31. On May 4, 2016, the Appeals
Counsel denied Plaintiff's request for review of the
ALJ's decision. Id. at 1, 18. Plaintiff then
commenced the instant action.
Summary of the ALJ's Ruling
ultimately concluded that Plaintiff (referred to by the ALJ
as “the claimant”) was “not under a
disability within the meaning of the Social Security Act from
January 1, 2008, through the date last insured.” AR at
23. The ALJ made the following eleven findings:
1. The claimant last met the insured status requirements of
the Social Security Act through December 31, 2010.
2. The claimant did not engage in substantial gainful
activity during the period from her alleged onset date of
January 1, 2008 through her date last insured of December 31,
3. Through the date last insured, the claimant had the
following severe impairments: hypothyroidism with euthyroid
Graves orbitopathy and headaches.
4. Through the date last insured, the claimant did not have
an impairment or combination of impairments that met or
medically equaled 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, through the date last insured, the claimant has the
residual functional capacity to perform medium work, as
defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(c) except: the claimant needed to
avoid exposure to excessive noise (level four or above, as
defined by the Dictionary of Occupational Titles); and the
claimant was limited to occupations requiring no more than
occasional near and peripheral visual acuity.
6. Through the date last insured, the claimant was unable to
perform any past relevant work.
7. The claimant was born on March 23, 1956 and was 54 years
old, which is defined as an individual closely approaching
advanced age, on the date last insured.
8. The claimant has at least a high school education and is
able to communicate in English.
9. Transferability of job skills is not material to the
determination of disability because using the
Medical-Vocational Rules as framework supports a finding that
the claimant is “not disabled, ” whether or not
the claimant has transferable job skills.
10. Through the date last insured, considering the
claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual
functional capacity, there were jobs that existed in
significant No. in the national economy that the claimant
could have performed.
11. The claimant was not under a disability, as defined in
the Social Security Act, at any time from January 1, 2008,
the alleged onset date, through December ...