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.

Grubb v. Colvin

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina

July 6, 2015

CHARLIE F. GRUBB, III, in his capacity as Executor of the Estate of Danielle J. Grubb, 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, Danielle J. Grubb, [1] brought this action pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. ยง 405(g)), to obtain judicial review of a final decision of Defendant, the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, denying Plaintiff's claims for a period of disability and Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") under Title II of the Social Security Act (the "Act"), and for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") under Title XVI of the Act. (See Docket Entry 1.) The Court has before it the certified administrative record (cited herein as "Tr. __") and the parties have filed cross-motions for judgment (Docket Entries 7, 10). For the reasons that follow, the Court should enter judgment for Defendant.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff protectively applied for DIB, a period of disability, and SSI on June 17, 2010, alleging a disability onset date of September 16, 2005. (Tr. 170-71, 172-76.)[2] After denial of the applications initially (Tr. 137-41) and on reconsideration (Tr. 144-47), Plaintiff requested a hearing de novo before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") (Tr. 148-49). Plaintiff and her attorney appeared at the hearing. (Tr. 34-61.) The ALJ thereafter determined that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled within the meaning of the Act (Tr. 29); further, the ALJ found that as a result of Plaintiff's first application, res judicata barred reconsideration of her disability during the time of the first decision, so the ALJ only considered the period from September 16, 2009 (the day after the first ALJ's decision), to the date of the instant decision (Tr. 19). The Appeals Council subsequently denied Plaintiff's request for review and did not consider the new evidence provided by Plaintiff as it related to a period after the ALJ's decision. (Tr. 1-4.)

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

1. [Plaintiff] meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2010.
2. [Plaintiff] has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since September 16, 2009....
3. [Plaintiff] has the following severe impairments: chronic asthma with asthmatic bronchitis; tachycardia; and obesity....
...
4. [Plaintiff] 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....
...
5.... [Plaintiff] has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b), except that she has postural, environmental[, ] and mental limitations. [Plaintiff] has postural limitations, such that she can only occasionally climb ramps, climb stairs, stoop, bend, kneel, or crouch; and she can never climb ladders, ropes[, ] or scaffolds. She has environmental limitations, such that she must avoid concentrated exposure to wetness, humidity, and extremes of cold and heat. She must also avoid concentrated exposure to operation control of moving machinery and unprotected heights. Due to mild fatigue associated with a combination of [Plaintiff's] severe impairments, she may not work at a production rate or pace.

(Tr. 21-23 (internal parenthetical citations removed).)

In light of the foregoing findings regarding residual functional capacity, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff could perform her past relevant work as a customer service representative. (Tr. 27.) Accordingly, the ALJ ruled that Plaintiff did not have a disability, as defined by the Act, at ...


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.