United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville
GARRY L. CRAYTON PLAINTIFF
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY DEFENDANT
Whalin, Magistrate Judge United States District Court
Garry L. Crayton has filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§405(g) to obtain judicial review of a final decision of
the Commissioner of Social Security that denied his
applications for disability insurance benefits (DIB) and
supplemental security income (SSI). Crayton applied for SSI
and DIB on Sept. 9, 2013 and Jan. 15, 2014, respectively,
alleging that he was disabled as of July 15, 2012, due to
left leg and hip problems, breathing issues, migraine
headaches, vision limitations, limited literacy, arm muscle
spasms, dizziness, and arthritis (Tr. 326, 332, 351). The
Commissioner denied Crayton's claims on initial
consideration (Tr.205, 213) and on reconsideration (Tr. 220,
227). Crayton requested a hearing before an Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ) (Tr.).
Candace A. McDaniel conducted two hearings in Louisville,
Kentucky, one on November 17, 2015 and a second on June 21,
2106 (Tr. DN 82-116; DN 117-150). Crayton attended both
hearings with his attorneys, Ms. Davis initially and then Mr.
Cook (Id.). Both Crayton and the vocational experts
(VE) Sharon Lane and Jeanie Deal testified at the two
hearings, respectively (Tr. 107-115, 139-150). Following the
conclusion of the hearings, ALJ McDaniel entered a hearing
decision on August 1, 2016 that found Crayton is not disabled
for the purposes of the Social Security Act (Tr. 60-75).
adverse decision, ALJ McDaniel made the following findings:
1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the
Social Security Act through Sept 30, 2013.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since July 15, 2012, the alleged onset date (20
C.F.R. 404.1571, et seq. and 416.971, et
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments:
status/post bilateral total hip replacements, lumbar
degenerative disc disease, and history of learning
disorder/borderline intellectual functioning (20 C.F.R.
404.1520(c) and 416.920(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 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart
P, Appendix 1 (20 C.F.R. 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526,
416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926).
5. After careful consideration of the entire record, the
undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual
functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20
CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except requires the ability to
alternate at 30-to-60 minute intervals where the change takes
no more than 1-to- 3 minutes without leaving the workspace;
no climbing ladders, ropes, and scaffolds; no climbing
stairs; could occasionally climb a ramp, stoop, crouch,
crawl, and kneel; there would be no hazards which include
unprotected heights or operation of the exposed moving
machinery that cuts or grinds and fails to stop when human
contact's loss; no concentrated exposure to vibration;
occasional pushing/pulling with the left and right leg; can
understand remember, and carry out simple routine tasks; can
tolerate interaction with coworkers and supervisors, as
needed for task completion; can interact appropriately with
the public, but no more than occasionally; can maintain
attention and concentration for two-hour segments throughout
an eight-hour workday; and can tolerate routine changes in a
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work
(20 C.F.R. 404.1565 and 416.965).
7. The claimant was born on June 5, 1963, and was
49-years-old, which is defined as a younger individual age
18-49, on the alleged disability onset date. The claimant
subsequently changed age category to closely approaching
advanced age (20 C.F.R. 404.1563 and 416.963).
8. The claimant has a marginal education and is able to
communicate in English (20 C.F.R. 404.1564 and 416.964).
9. Transferability of job skills is not an issue in this case
because the claimant's past relevant work is unskilled
(See SSR 82-41 and 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App. 2).
10. Considering the claimant's age, education, work
experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs
that exist in significant numbers in the national economy
that the claimant can perform (20 C.F.R. 404.1569,
404.1569(a), 416.969 and 416.969(a)).
11. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined
in the Social Security Act, from July 15, 2012, through the
date of this decision (20 C.F.R. 404.1520(g) and 416.920(g)).
(Tr. 60-75). Crayton sought review of the hearing decision by
the Appeals Council (Tr.50-56). The Appeals Council denied
his request for review, finding no reason under the Rules to
review ALJ McDaniel's decision (Tr. 37-43). The present
Five-Step Sequential ...