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.

Tucker v. Colvin

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division

January 27, 2017

Gloria A. Tucker, Plaintiff,
v.
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.

          ORDER

          R. Bryan Harwell United States District Judge

         Plaintiff Gloria A. Tucker (“Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review, pursuant to 42');">2');">2');">2 U.S.C. § 405(g), of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the “Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff's claim for supplemental security income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (the “Act”). The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, made in accordance with 2');">2');">2');">28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02');">2');">2');">2(B)(2');">2');">2');">2) for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge recommends the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision. [ECF #18');">18].

         Factual Findings and Procedural History

         Plaintiff Gloria A. Tucker was born in 19');">19');">19');">1964 and was forty-eight years old on the date she filed her application for SSI benefits . [ECF #10-2');">2');">2');">2, p. 38');">p. 38]. Plaintiff has a high school education and past relevant work experience as a housekeeper, and a screen printer and packager. [ECF #10-2');">2');">2');">2, p. 38');">p. 38]. On February 2');">2');">2');">24, 2');">2');">2');">2012');">2');">2');">2, Plaintiff filed a claim for SSI, alleging a disability onset date of June 1, 2');">2');">2');">2001. Plaintiff alleges she is disabled due to leg and knee pain, neck and back pain, and arthritis. The Social Security Administration denied her application initially and on reconsideration, so Plaintiff requested a hearing before the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). [ECF #14');">14, p. 1]. The ALJ conducted a video hearing on January 2');">2');">2');">22');">2');">2');">2, 2');">2');">2');">2014');">14. [ECF #14');">14, p. 1]. The ALJ denied Plaintiff's claim on April 18');">18, 2');">2');">2');">2014');">14, finding that Plaintiff was not under a disability as defined in the Social Security Act, as amended. [ECF #10-2');">2');">2');">2, p.56]. The ALJ's findings were as follows:

(1) Claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since February 2');">2');">2');">24, 2');">2');">2');">2012');">2');">2');">2, the application date (2');">2');">2');">20 C.F.R. 416.971 et seq.).
(2');">2');">2');">2) Claimant has the following severe impairments: degenerative changes of the cervical spine, lumbar spine, and knees, and chronic pain syndrome (2');">2');">2');">20 C.F.R. 416.92');">2');">2');">20(c)).
(3) Claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 2');">2');">2');">20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (2');">2');">2');">20 C.F.R. 416.92');">2');">2');">20(d), 416.92');">2');">2');">25 and 416.92');">2');">2');">26).
(4) After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 2');">2');">2');">20 C.F.R. 416.967(b) with frequent postural activities, except she can never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, balance for safety on dangerous surfaces or crawl. She can occasionally reach overhead and frequently reach out bilateraly. Claimant must avoid concentrated exposure to hazards such as unprotected heights and dangerous machinery or parts.
(5) Claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work (2');">2');">2');">20 C.F.R. 416.965).
(6) Claimant was born on February 12');">2');">2');">2, 19');">19');">19');">1964, and was 48 years old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18');">18-49, on the date the application was filed (2');">2');">2');">20 C.F.R.416.963).
(7) The claimant has at least a high school education and is able to communicate in English (2');">2');">2');">20 C.F.R.416.964).
(8) Transferability of job skills is not material to the determination of disability because using the Medical-Vocational Rules as a framework supports a finding that claimant is “not disabled, ” whether or not claimant has transferrable job skills (See SSR 82');">2');">2');">2-41 and 2');">2');">2');">20 C.F.R. Part 4, Subpart P, Appendix 2');">2');">2');">2).
(9) Considering claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that claimant can perform (2');">2');">2');">20 C.F.R. 416.969 and 416.969(a)).
(11) Claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, since February 2');">2');">2');">24, 2');">2');">2');">2012');">2');">2');">2, the date the application was filed (2');">2 ...

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.