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.

Holloman v. Astrue

September 13, 2010

GARY HOLLOMAN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.



ORDER

Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying his application for supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. For the reasons discussed below, the court will remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed an application for benefits on September 7, 2005. Administrative Record ("AR") 25. His application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. Id. at 27-31.

A hearing was held on September 11, 2007 before Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Mark C. Ramsey; plaintiff was represented by attorney Randall Padgett. Id. at 12. In a decision dated December 18, 2007, the ALJ determined plaintiff was not disabled.*fn1 Id.

The ALJ made the following specific findings:

1. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity after August 24, 2002.

2. The medical evidence establishes that the claimant has degenerative joint and cardiac disease, but he does not have an impairment or combination of impairments listed in, or medically equal to one listed in Appendix 1, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4.

3. The claimant's subjective complaints are not consistent with the evidence of record and not fully credible.

4. The claimant has the residual functional capacity for lifting 10 pounds. The claimant can stand and walk for 2 hours, and sit for at least 6 hours, in an 8 hour day.

5. The claimant cannot perform his past relevant work. The claimant is 46 years of age and has a 12th grade education.

6. Rule 201.28, Appendix 1, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4, directs that the claimant is not disabled, as there are a significant number of jobs that he can perform.

7. The claimant was not under a "disability" as defined in the Social Security Act, at any time through the date of this decision (20 CFR 404.1520(e) and 416.920(e)).

Id. at 17-18.

Plaintiff requested that the Appeals Council review the ALJ's decision. However, on March 21, 2009, the Appeals Council denied review, leaving the ALJ's decision as the final decision of ...


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.