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.

Holly K. Winslow v. Michael J. Astrue

September 13, 2011

HOLLY K. WINSLOW, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Jacqueline Chooljian United States Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF REMAND

I. SUMMARY

On December 21, 2010, plaintiff Holly K. Winslow ("plaintiff") filed a Complaint seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of plaintiff's application for benefits. The parties have consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, respectively ("Plaintiff's Motion") and ("Defendant's Motion"). The Court has taken both motions under submission without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15; January 5, 2011 Case Management Order, ¶ 5.

Based on the record as a whole and the applicable law, the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED AND REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order of Remand.

II. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION

On September 12, 2006, plaintiff filed applications for Supplemental

Security Income benefits and Disability Insurance Benefits. (Administrative Record ("AR") 155, 314, 317). Plaintiff asserted that she became disabled on November 1, 2005, due to degenerative disc disease, stenosis, bone spurs, high blood pressure and Type 2 Diabetes. (AR 332). The Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") examined the medical record and heard testimony from plaintiff and a vocational expert on December 15, 2008, January 12, 2009, and June 16, 2009 (collectively "Pre-Remand Hearings"). (AR 51-147). On August 26, 2009, the*fn1 ALJ determined that plaintiff was not disabled through the date of the decision ("Pre-Remand Decision"). (AR 155).

On January 28, 2010, the Appeals Council granted review, vacated the Pre-Remand Decision, and remanded the matter for further administrative proceedings. (AR 166-68). The ALJ again examined the medical record and heard testimony from plaintiff (who was represented by counsel) and a vocational expert on June 14, 2010 ("Post-Remand Hearing"). (AR 24-50).

On August 13, 2010, the ALJ again determined that plaintiff was not disabled through the date of the decision ("Post-Remand Decision"). (AR 10).*fn2

Specifically, the ALJ found: (1) plaintiff suffered from the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, bilateral knee pain, obesity, depression, and a history of alcohol abuse (AR 12-13); (2) plaintiff's impairments, considered singly or in combination, did not meet or medically equal one of the listed impairments (AR 13-14); (3) plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity to perform light work (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(b), 416.967(b)) with certain limitations (AR 15-16); (4) plaintiff could not perform her past*fn3 relevant work (AR 16); (5) there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that plaintiff could perform, specifically information clerk, electronics worker, and sewing machine operator (AR 17); and (6) plaintiff's allegations regarding her limitations were not fully credible. (AR 16, 160).

The Appeals Council denied plaintiff's second application for review. (AR 1).

III. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Sequential Evaluation ...


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.