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.

Spencer v. Commissioner of Social Security

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

October 31, 2017

DALE L. SPENCER, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

          Judge, James L. Graham

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          KIMBERLY A. JOLSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff, Dale L. Spencer, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying his application for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”), a period of disability, and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). For the reasons that follow, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court REVERSE the Commissioner's nondisability finding and REMAND this case to the Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) under Sentence Four of § 405(g).

         I. BACKGROUND

         A. Procedural Background

         Plaintiff applied for DIB, a period of disability, and SSI on December 26, 2012, alleging disability beginning August 13, 2012, due to numerous physical and mental impairments. (Tr. 129-35). An Administrative Law Judge (the “ALJ”) held a hearing (Tr. 598-631) after Plaintiff's application was denied initially (Tr. 84-86) and upon reconsideration (Tr. 92-93). On March 7, 2016, the ALJ denied benefits in a written decision. (Tr. 15-23). That decision became final when the Appeals Council denied review on January 19, 2017. (Tr. 7-9).

         Plaintiff filed this case on March 15, 2017 (Doc. 1), and the Commissioner filed the administrative record manually on May 23, 2017 (Doc. 11). Plaintiff filed a Statement of Specific Errors on July 7, 2017 (Doc. 12), the Commissioner responded on August 14, 2017 (Doc. 13), and Plaintiff replied on August 28, 2017 (Doc. 14).

         B. Relevant Medical Records

         The medical records relevant to Plaintiff's right foot problem show he had a diagnosis of hallux rigidus, associated pain, and an antalgic gait. (See, e.g., Tr. 304-305, 485, 486, 503, 539, 568-69, 586). They likewise reflect that Plaintiff suffers a decreased range of motion due to his arthritic joint. (Id.). In 2015, Plaintiff underwent cheilectomy to address his hallux rigidus. (Tr. 462, 547). Plaintiff described “sitting around a lot” following the surgery because of the pain caused by putting weight on his right foot. (Tr. 509).

         After considering only Plaintiff's spine disorders and not his right foot disorder of hallux rigidus, state agency consultant Gary Hinzman, M.D. opined on January 30, 2015, that Plaintiff could perform light work with limitations. (Tr. 58-66). State agency consultant Frank Stroebel, M.D. concurred with Dr. Hinzman's opinion on May 7, 2013, but also considered only Plaintiff's spine disorders and not his right foot disorder of hallux rigidus. (Tr. 68-76).

         C. Relevant Hearing Testimony

         Plaintiff's counsel indicated that Plaintiff's “two major issues” are “low back problems” and “a problem with his right foot.” (Tr. 600-601). Plaintiff indicated that the surgery on his right foot eased the pain but did not restore his mobility. (Tr. 626-27). Plaintiff testified that, on a normal day, he spends at most two to three hours on his feet, standing or walking. (Tr. 617). Plaintiff's activity includes doing housework, getting dressed, and grooming himself “in intervals” (Tr. 617, 621), watching football, and playing cards. (Tr. 618). He is able to do some grocery shopping and, with difficulty, can lift a gallon of milk or a ten-pound bag of potatoes. (Tr. 624). Plaintiff can drive a car for a short period of time. (Tr. 625).

         The Vocational Expert testified, inter alia, that an individual of Plaintiff's age, education, work experience limited to standing and walking a maximum of three hours in an eight-hour workday, lifting a maximum of ten pounds occasionally and five pounds frequently would be limited to sedentary work. (Tr. 629).

         D. The ...


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.