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.

Craig v. Colvin

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division

April 9, 2015

Betty Craig, Plaintiff,
v.
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

MARY GORDON BAKER, Magistrate Judge.

This case is before the Court for a report and recommendation pursuant to Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a), D.S.C., concerning the disposition of Social Security cases in this District, and Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1).

The Plaintiff, Betty Craig, brought this action pursuant to Section 1631(c)(3) of the Social Security Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. ยง 1383(c)(3), to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner") regarding her claim for supplemental security income benefits ("SSI") under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, as amended (the "Act").

RELEVANT FACTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

The Plaintiff was 39 years old on the date she applied for supplemental security income and 41 years old on the date of the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision. (R. at 27-29.) She alleged disability beginning on July 15, 2006, due to degenerative disc disease, migraines, high blood pressure, asthma, high cholesterol, and chest pains. (R. at 155.) Plaintiff completed two years of college and has past relevant work as a lab technician. (R. at 155-56, 27.)

The Plaintiff filed an application for SSI on March 28, 2011. (R. at 18.) Her application was denied initially and on reconsideration. (R. at 18.) After a hearing by an ALJ on July 24, 2012, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on August 14, 2012. (R. at 18-28.) The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review, (R. at 1-3), making the ALJ's decision the Commissioner's final decision for purposes of judicial review.

In making the determination that the Plaintiff is not entitled to benefits, the Commissioner has adopted the following findings of the ALJ:

(1) The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since March 28, 2011, the application date (20 CFR 416.971 et seq. ).
(2) The claimant has the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and anxiety (20 CFR 416.920(c)).
(3) 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 416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926).
(4) After careful consideration of the entire record, I find that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(a) except the claimant may occasionally climb, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, or crawl. She must avoid concentrated exposure to hazards and is limited to routine, repetitive tasks in an environment with little change to the workplace or working conditions. In addition, the claimant may have no more than occasional interaction with the public, coworkers, and supervisors and must be allowed to shift position from sitting to standing every 30 minutes.
(5) The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work (20 CFR 416.965).
(6) The claimant was born on August 5, 1971 and was 39 years old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-44, on the date 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.