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.

William P. Bennett v. Michael J. Astrue

September 28, 2012

WILLIAM P. BENNETT, 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 applications for a period of disability and Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. The parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment. For the reasons discussed below, the court grants the Commissioner's motion and denies plaintiff's motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff protectively applied for a period of disability, DIB and SSI on August 30, 2007, alleging that he had been disabled since September 15, 2005. Administrative Record ("AR") 73-76, 184. Plaintiff's applications were initially denied on February 19, 2008, and upon reconsideration on August 20, 2008. Id. at 77, 83. On October 22, 2009, a hearing was held before administrative law judge ("ALJ") Michael McShane. Id. at 35. Plaintiff was represented by counsel at the hearing, at which he and a vocational expert ("VE") testified. Id. at 35-72.

On November 13, 2009, the ALJ issued a decision finding that plaintiff was not disabled under sections 216(i), 223(d), and 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Act.*fn1 Id. at 21-28. The ALJ made the following specific findings:

1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2009.

2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since September 15, 2005, the alleged onset date (20 CFR 404.1571 et seq., and 416.971). ...

3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: lumbar spine bulges L2-3, L3-4, and L4-5 and narrowing at L5-S1 with complaints of pain (20 CFR 404.1520(c) and 416.920(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, 404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926). ...

5. After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to lift 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; the ability to stand and/or walk for a total of at least 2 hours in an 8-hour work day; can occasionally climb ramps and stairs; never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; can occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, or crawl; and no work at unprotected heights or around dangerous moving machinery. ...

6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work (20 CFR 404.1565 and 416.965). ...

7. The claimant was born [in] 1969 and was 36 years old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the alleged disability onset date (20 CFR 404.1563 and 416.963).

8. The claimant has at least a high school education and is able to communicate in English (20 CFR 404.1564 and 416.964).

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 skills (See SSR 82-41 and 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2).

10. Considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform (20 CFR 404.1569, 404.1569(a), 416.969, and 416.969(a)). ...

11. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from June 13, 2008 through the date of this decision (20 CFR 404.1520(g) and 416.920(g)).

Id. at 23-28.

Plaintiff requested that the Appeals Council review the ALJ's decision. Id. at 82. However, on April 28, 2011, the Appeals Council denied review, leaving the ALJ's decision as the final decision ...


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.