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.

Tasseff v. Commissioner of Social Security

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division, Dayton

June 13, 2017

GEORGE TASSEFF, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

          Walter H. Rice District Judge

         REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION[1] THAT: (1) THE ALJ'S NON-DISABILITY FINDING BE FOUND UNSUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AND REVERSED; (2) THIS MATTER BE REMANDED TO THE COMMISSIONER UNDER THE FOURTH SENTENCE OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION; AND (3) THIS CASE BE CLOSED

          Michael J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

         This is a Social Security disability benefits appeal. At issue is whether the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in finding Plaintiff not “disabled” and therefore unentitled to Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) and/or Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”).[2] This case is before the Court upon Plaintiffs Statement of Errors (doc. 10), the Commissioner's memorandum in opposition (doc. 11), Plaintiffs reply (doc. 12), the administrative record (doc. 8), and the record as a whole.

         I.

         A. Procedural History

         Plaintiff filed an application for SSI and DIB asserting disability as of October 1, 2004 on account of a number of impairments, including, inter alia, bipolar disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”). PageID 985.

         On March 21, 2012, Plaintiff had a hearing before ALJ Mary Withum. PageID 985. On May 17, 2012, the ALJ issued a written decision finding Plaintiff not disabled. PageID 51-62. Plaintiff subsequently appealed that decision. PageID 985. In June 2013, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request and Plaintiff appealed to this Court. Id. In April 2014, we remanded the case under Sentence Four for further proceedings based on the parties' joint motion to remand. PageID 985-86.

         On remand, Plaintiff received a second hearing before ALJ Gregory Kenyon on December 17, 2014. PageID 1068. On March 19, 2015 ALJ Kenyon issued a written decision finding Plaintiff not disabled. PageID 1197-1213. Plaintiff subsequently appealed that decision. PageID 986. The Appeals Council rejected the ALJ Kenyon's recommendation, finding that it failed to account for the evidence relating to Plaintiff's mental impairments and remanded the case back to the ALJ for additional proceedings. PageID 1223-27.

         On February 25, 2016, Plaintiff received a second hearing before ALJ Kenyon. PageID 1025. On May 3, 2016 ALJ Kenyon issued an opinion in which he again found Plaintiff not disabled. PageID 982-1011. Specifically, ALJ Kenyon's findings were as follows:

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 October 1, 2004, the alleged onset date (20 CFR 404.1571 et seq., and 416.971 et seq.).
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: bipolar disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (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 the severity of 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 [“RFC”] to perform a range of light work[3] as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b). The claimant is limited to lifting up to twenty pounds occasionally, lift or carry up to ten pounds frequently in light work as defined by the regulations; never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; and avoid all exposure to unprotected heights; and no operation of commercial motor vehicles. In addition, work is limited to one or two step tasks in an environment free of fast paced production requirements; a low stress job with only occasional decision making required and only occasional changes in the work setting; only occasional interaction with the public, coworkers and supervisors.
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work (20 CFR 404.1565 and 416.965).
7. The claimant was born [in] 1963 and was 41 years old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the alleged disability onset date. The claimant subsequently changed age category to closely approaching advanced age (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 an issue in this case because the claimant's past relevant work is unskilled ...

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.