Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying his application for a period of disability and Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") under Title II of the Social Security Act. Plaintiff moves for summary judgment.*fn1 For the reasons discussed below, the court grants plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and remands the case for further proceedings.
Plaintiff formally applied for a period of disability and DIB on April 30, 2008, alleging that he had been disabled since March 16, 2008. Administrative Record ("AR") 64, 68, 129. Plaintiff's application was initially denied on August 6, 2008, and upon reconsideration on October 16, 2008. Id. at 72, 77. On March 31, 2010, a hearing was held before administrative law judge ("ALJ") Mark C. Ramsey. Id. at 29. Plaintiff, who was represented by counsel, testified at the hearing. Id. at 29-63.
On June 11, 2010, the ALJ issued a decision finding that plaintiff was
not disabled under sections 216(I) and 223(d) of the Act.*fn2
Id. at 9-17.
The ALJ made the following specific findings:
1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2012.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since March 16, 2008, the alleged onset date (20 CFR 404.1571 et seq.).
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: left Achilles tendinitis, diabetes mellitus neuropathy and major depressive disorder (20 CFR 404.1520(c)).
4. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 404.1520(d), 404.1525 and 404.1526). ...
5. After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform unskilled, light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b). ...
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work (20 CFR 404.1565). ...
7. The claimant was born [in] 1965 and was 42 years old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the alleged disability onset date (20 CFR 404.1563).
8. The claimant has limited education and is able to communicate in English (20 CFR 404.1564).
9. Transferability of job skills is not material to the determination of disability because using the Medical-Vocational Rules as a framework supports a finding that the claimant is "not disabled," whether or not the claimant has transferable job ...