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.

Jeley v. Commissioner of Social Security

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

January 4, 2018

ADEN Y. JELEY, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

          Edmund A. Sargus, Chief Judge.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          KIMBERLY A. JOLSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Plaintiff, Aden Y. Jeley, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying his application for supplemental security income. For the reasons that follow, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court REVERSE the Commissioner's nondisability finding and REMAND this case under Sentence Four of § 405(g).

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff filed an application for supplemental security income on June 30, 2013, alleging disability since January 1, 2010. (Tr. 15, PAGEID #: 53). After initial administrative denials of Plaintiff's claims, Administrative Law Judge Jason C. Earnhart (“the ALJ”) heard the case on July 16, 2015. (Id.; Tr. 36-63, PAGEID #: 74-101). On August 12, 2015, the ALJ issued a decision, finding that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. (Tr. 15-29, PAGEID #: 53-67). Plaintiff requested review of the decision by the Appeals Council, which denied the request on March 8, 2007. (Tr. 1-4, PAGEID #: 39-42). Thus, the ALJ's decision became the Commissioner's final decision. (Id.).

         Plaintiff filed this case on May 9, 2017, and the Commissioner filed the administrative record on July 17, 2017. (Doc. 9). Plaintiff filed a Statement of Specific Errors on September 10, 2017 (Doc. 12), the Commissioner responded on October 18, 2017 (Doc. 13), and Plaintiff replied on November 2, 2017 (Doc. 14).

         A. Personal Background and Relevant Hearing Testimony

         Plaintiff was born in Somalia on May 2, 1971 (Tr. 127, PAGEID #: 165), and came to the United States as a refugee in 2013 (Tr. 47, PAGEID #: 85). Plaintiff has no education (Tr. 46, PAGEID #: 84) and speaks little English (Tr. 40, PAGEID #: 77). He was a nomad with work raising camels in Somalia and as a shopkeeper in South Africa. (Tr. 185, PAGEID #: 223; Tr. 245, PAGEID #: 283; Tr. 234, PAGEID #: 272). Plaintiff has not worked since his arrival in this country (Tr. 47, PAGEID #: 85), does not drive (Tr. 77, PAGEID #: 115), lives with a roommate, and has a home health aide who comes for two hours each day to “help[ ] him with the restroom, ” clean, do laundry, and cook. (Tr. 51, PAGEID #: 89).

         Plaintiff was shot in the abdomen during a robbery while in South Africa in 2010, after which he had surgery. (Tr. 69, PAGEID #: 108). Plaintiff alleges that the gunshot wound caused a number of medical issues, including a lumbar spine impairment with lower back pain, abdominal pain, and right kidney disease that results in recurrent urinary tract infections and increased urinary frequency and urgency. (Tr. 40-42, PAGEID #: 77-79). Testifying through an interpreter at the hearing, Plaintiff stated that increased urinary frequency causes him to go to the restroom ten times per day and ten times per night, which interferes with his sleep. (Tr. 48- 49, PAGEID #: 86-87).

         Plaintiff also suffers from an abdominal hernia, chronic hypertension, breathing difficulties, post-traumatic stress disorder, a depressive disorder, a cognitive disorder, and schizophrenia. (Tr. 41, PAGEID #: 79; Tr. 43, PAGEID #: 81). He likewise testified that he suffers from memory problems. (Tr. 50-51, PAGEID #: 88-89). His alleged onset date is January 1, 2010. (Tr. 127, PAGEID #: 165).

         At the hearing, the ALJ asked the Vocational Expert (the “VE”) to consider a hypothetical individual with Plaintiff's residual functional capacity (“RFC”) of the same age, education, and experience, with no past work. (Tr. 53, PAGEID #: 91). The VE sought clarification from the ALJ to the extent that the RFC required that the hypothetical individual “be accessible to a restroom throughout the entire workday.” (Tr. 54, PAGEID #: 92). The relevant exchange is as follows:

VE: Well, I-I guess I have a question on that last limitation, Your Honor.
ALJ: Sure.
VE: Accessible to a restroom throughout the entire day.
ALJ: That means no outside. No going for trips outside.
VE: Yes, right.
ALJ: And, you know, being in an environment where-
VE: Sure.
ALJ: -they are able to use the restroom. Not-we're going to talk about ...

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.