United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division
Patty S. Raynes, Plaintiff,
Andrew M. Saul, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.
Bryan Harwell Chief United States District Judge
Patty S. Raynes seeks judicial review, pursuant to Section
205(g) of the Social Security Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g)), of a final decision of the Commissioner of
the Social Security Administration (the
“Commissioner”) denying her claim for disability
insurance benefits (“DIB”). The matter is before
the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald, made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02(B)(2) for the District of South Carolina. The
Magistrate Judge recommends the Court remand Ms. Raynes's
case back to the Commissioner for further proceedings. [ECF
No. 23]. The Commissioner filed an objection to the R&R,
and Plaintiff filed her reply. [ECF No. 25; ECF No. 26]. This
Court now issues the following Order.
Findings and Procedural History
filed an application for DIB on January 21, 2016, alleging
she became unable to work due to major depressive disorder,
generalized anxiety disorder, ADHD, and other social and
mental disorders. The R&R adequately sets forth
Raynes's medical evidence as presented in the record.
Briefly stated, the medical records reveal that Raynes has
sought treatment during the covered period for anxiety and
other mental disorders, as well as migraines. Raynes
exhibited depressive symptoms and was diagnosed with
generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and
she endorsed symptoms of PTSD. She complained of work-related
problems, poor judgment, restlessness, and defiant behavior.
She continued to suffer from a host of mental impairments
over the course of several years.
her application was denied initially and on reconsideration,
Raynes requested a hearing. On October 4, 2017, both Raynes
and an impartial vocational expert (“VE”) were
present for a hearing. The ALJ gave an unfavorable decision
to Raynes on December 20, 2017, finding Raynes was not under
a disability. The ALJ's findings were as follows:
(1) The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the
Social Security Act through December 31, 2020.
(2) The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since December 15, 2015, the alleged onset date (20
CFR 404.1571 et seq.).
(3) The claimant has the following severe impairments:
affective disorder; anxiety disorder; attention-deficit
hyperactivity disorder; and borderline personality disorder
(20 CFR 404.1520(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, and 404.1526.
(5) After careful consideration of the entire record, I find
the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform
a full range of work at all exertional levels but with the
following nonexertional limitations: only simple, routine,
and repetitive tasks but not at a production rate pace (e.g.,
assembly line work); only simple work-related decisions; no
more than occasional ability to respond appropriately to
co-workers; no work involving team-type duties; no ability to
respond appropriately to the public; and the ability to
tolerate only few changes in a routine work setting defined
as having only occasional, routine changes in the work
setting and duties.
(6) The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work
(20 CFR 404.1565).
(7) The claimant was born on October 9, 1956 and was 59 years
old, which is defined as an individual of advanced age, on
the alleged disability date (20 CFR 404.1563).
(8) The claimant has at least a high school education and is
able to communicate in English (20 CFR 404.1564).
(9) 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 the claimant is “not disabled, ” whether or
not the claimant has trasnferable job ...