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.

Shuck v. Berryhill

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky

February 6, 2018

LISA GAYLE SHUCK, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          JOSEPH M. HOOD, SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court on the parties' cross-Motions for Summary Judgment (DEs 13 and 15) on Plaintiff's appeal of the Commissioner's denial of her current application for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB).[1] The matter having been fully briefed by the parties is now ripe for this Court's review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

         I. Overview of the Process and the Instant Matter

         In determining whether an individual is disabled, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) uses a five step analysis:

1. An individual who is working and engaging in substantial gainful activity is not disabled, regardless of the claimant's medical condition.
2. An individual who is working but does not have a “severe” impairment which significantly limits his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities is not disabled.
3. If an individual is not working and has a severe impairment which “meets the duration requirement and is listed in appendix 1 or equal to a listed impairment(s)”, then he is disabled regardless of other factors.
4. If a decision cannot be reached based on current work activity and medical facts alone, and the claimant has a severe impairment, then the Secretary reviews the claimant's residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands of the claimant's previous work. If the claimant is able to continue to do this previous work, then he is not disabled.
5. If the claimant cannot do any work he did in the past because of a severe impairment, then the Secretary considers his residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience to see if he can do other work. If he cannot, the claimant is disabled.

Preslar v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 14 F.3d 1107, 1110 (6th Cir. 1994)(citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(1982)).

         II.

         Plaintiff filed her current application for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB)[2], alleging disability as of February 7, 2006 (Tr. 179-187). The application was denied initially and on reconsideration, and by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) after a hearing (Tr. 13-30). The Appeals Council declined Plaintiff's request for review (Tr. 1-2), making the ALJ's May 15, 2015 decision the final agency decision for purposes of judicial review. 20 C.F.R. § 422.210(a).[3] This appeal followed.

         III.

         Plaintiff was 41 years old when she most recently allegedly became disabled on May 8, 2012, and 42 years old when she was last insured for DIB on September 30, 2012 (Tr. 316). Plaintiff has a twelfth-grade education, with additional training and certifications, and listed past relevant work as a police officer (Tr. 358-359). Plaintiff initially alleged she was unable to work due to both physical and mental impairments (Tr. 357).

         Providers at Comprehensive Care (Comp Care) treated Plaintiff since 2010 through her date last insured for DIB in September 2012 related to her complaints of anxiety, panic attacks, and depression (Tr. 439-448, 522-539). In June 2010, Comp Care psychologist Ellen L. Crawford, Ph.D., completed a basic assessment report describing Plaintiff's ongoing problems with stress, depression, and pain related to a right arm injury. Plaintiff also reported that she had experienced a few panic attacks. Dr. ...


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.