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.

Capers v. Berryhill

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division

January 9, 2018

KAWANDA M. CAPERS
v.
NANCY W. BERRYHILL, ACTING COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

          ROBERT G. JAMES JUDGE.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          KAREN L. HAYES MAG. JUDGE.

         Before the court is plaintiff's petition for review of the Commissioner's denial of social security disability benefits. The district court referred the matter to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for proposed findings of fact and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). For the reasons assigned below, it is recommended that the decision of the Commissioner be REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

         Background & Procedural History

         Kawanda Capers filed the instant application for Title II Disability Insurance Benefits on August 1, 2013. (Tr. 23, 118-119). She alleged disability as of June 1, 2013, because of major depressive disorder with psychotic features, “OCD, ” high blood pressure, acid reflux, and a July 1, 2013, nervous breakdown. (Tr. 122, 126). The state agency denied the claims at the initial stage of the administrative process. (Tr. 57-70). Thereafter, Capers requested and received an August 13, 2014, hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (Tr. 36-56). However, in a February 23, 2015, written decision, the ALJ determined that Capers was not disabled under the Act, finding at step five of the sequential evaluation process that she was able to make an adjustment to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. (Tr. 20-32).

         Capers appealed the adverse decision to the Appeals Council. On July 28, 2016, however, the Appeals Council denied her request for review; thus, the ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner. (Tr. 1-4).

         On September 28, 2016, Capers filed the instant complaint for judicial review. Succinctly re-characterized, she alleges the following errors,

1) for various reasons, the ALJ's residual functional capacity assessment regarding the effects of plaintiff's mental impairments is not supported by substantial evidence; and
2) the ALJ' step five determination is not supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ's hypothetical to the vocational expert did not include all of plaintiff's limitations of functioning.

         Standard of Review

         This court's standard of review is (1) whether substantial evidence of record supports the ALJ's determination, and (2) whether the decision comports with relevant legal standards. Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1990). Where the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence, the findings therein are conclusive and must be affirmed. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390 (1971). The Commissioner's decision is not supported by substantial evidence when the decision is reached by applying improper legal standards. Singletary v. Bowen, 798 F.2d 818 (5th Cir. 1986). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. at 401. Substantial evidence lies somewhere between a scintilla and a preponderance. Muse v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 785, 789 (5th Cir. 1991). A finding of no substantial evidence is proper when no credible medical findings or evidence support the ALJ's determination. Johnson v. Bowen, 864 F.2d 340, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1988). The reviewing court may not reweigh the evidence, try the issues de novo, or substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Greenspan v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 232, 236 (5th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted).

         Determination of Disability

         Pursuant to the Social Security Act (“SSA”), individuals who contribute to the program throughout their lives are entitled to payment of insurance benefits if they suffer from a physical or mental disability. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(a)(1)(D). The SSA defines a disability as the “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). Based on a claimant's age, education, and work experience, the SSA utilizes a broad definition of substantial gainful employment that is not restricted by a claimant's previous form of work or the availability of other acceptable forms of work. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A). Furthermore, a disability may be based on the combined effect of multiple impairments which, if considered individually, would not be of the requisite severity under the SSA. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii).

         The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration has established a five-step sequential evaluation process that the agency uses to determine whether a claimant is disabled under the SSA. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. The steps are as follows,

(1) An individual who is performing substantial gainful activity will not be found disabled regardless of medical findings.
(2) An individual who does not have a “severe impairment” of the requisite duration will not be found disabled.
(3) An individual whose impairment(s) meets or equals a listed impairment in [20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1] will be considered disabled without the consideration of vocational factors.
(4) If an individual's residual functional capacity is such that he or she can still perform past relevant work, then a finding 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.