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.

Cameron v. Colvin

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina

February 12, 2015

BRENDA LEE CAMERON, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

L. PATRICK AULD, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff, Brenda Lee Cameron, brought this action pursuant to the Social Security Act (the "Act") to obtain judicial review of a final decision of Defendant, the Commissioner of Social Security, denying Plaintiff's claim for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB"). (Docket Entry 2.) The Court has before it the certified administrative record (cited herein as "Tr. ___"), as well as the parties' cross-motions for judgment (Docket Entries 10, 16). For the reasons that follow, the Court should enter judgment for Defendant.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff filed an application for DIB on December 24, 2008 (protective filing date), alleging a disability onset date of September 2, 2008. (Tr. 173-79.)[1] Upon denial of that application initially (Tr. 85, 87-92) and on reconsideration (Tr. 86, 96-103), Plaintiff requested a hearing de novo before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") (Tr. 104-05). Plaintiff, her attorney, and a vocational expert ("VE") attended the hearing. (Tr. 61-84.) By decision dated August 13, 2010, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was not disabled under the Act. (Tr. 32-43.) On August 31, 2012, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review (Tr. 5-10), making the ALJ's ruling the Commissioner's final decision for purposes of judicial review.

In rendering that disability determination, the ALJ made the following findings later adopted by the Commissioner:

1. [Plaintiff] meets the insured status requirements of the [] Act through March 31, 2012.
2. [Plaintiff] has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since September 2, 2008, the alleged onset date.
....
3. [Plaintiff] has the following severe impairments: status post right knee arthroplasty, asthma, obesity, and chronic back pain.
....
4. [Plaintiff] does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.
....
5.... [Plaintiff] has the residual functional capacity to perform less than the full range of light work... with postural and environmental limitations.
....
6. [Plaintiff] is capable of performing past relevant work as an accounts receivable clerk, accounting clerk, and supervisor accounting clerk. This work does not require the performance of work-related activities precluded by [Plaintiff's] residual functional capacity
....
... [In addition, ] there are other jobs existing in the national economy that [Plaintiff] is also able to perform.
....
7. [Plaintiff] has not been under a disability, as defined in the [] Act, from September 2, 2008, through ...

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.