United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division, Dayton
H. Rice District Judge
AND RECOMMENDATION 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
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”). 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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