United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR REMAND
M. DiGirolamo, United States Magistrate Judge.
Stephen Mangal seeks judicial review under 42 U.S.C.
§§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) of a final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant” or
the “Commissioner”) denying his applications for
disability insurance benefits and for Supplemental Security
Income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act.
Before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment and alternative motion for remand (ECF No. 15) and
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
Plaintiff contends that the administrative record does not
contain substantial evidence to support the
Commissioner's decision that he is not disabled. No
hearing is necessary. L.R. 105.6. For the reasons that
follow, Plaintiff's alternative motion for remand (ECF
No. 15) is GRANTED.
8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court seeking
review of the Commissioner's final decision. Upon the
parties' consent, this case was transferred to a United
States Magistrate Judge for final disposition and entry of
judgment. The case then was reassigned to the undersigned.
The parties have briefed the issues, and the matter is now
Plaintiff waived his appearance at a hearing before an
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) on November 10,
2016. R. at 359. The ALJ reviewed in her decision
Plaintiff's testimony from previous hearings: [Plaintiff]
alleges based on prior job experiences that he would be a
risk to himself if required to work. He testified he is
afraid to go to work because he would be a danger to himself
and others. [Plaintiff] alleges insomnia. He alleges
irritability, hostility, and panic attacks under stress.
[Plaintiff] also reported he gets anxious when taking
instructions or being criticized on the job and that he
cannot handle fast-paced work. He also consistently speaks of
being irritable and preoccupied with his own thoughts. He
also speaks of social phobias and recounts having to leave
community college because he panicked in a large class
auditorium and kept leaving class early.
R. at 321-22 (citations omitted).
testified that a hypothetical individual with the same age,
education, and work experience as Plaintiff and with the
residual functional capacity (“RFC”) outlined
below in Part III could perform unskilled work such as the
sedentary job of taper for printed circuit boards, the light
job of pre-assembler for printed circuit boards, and the
medium job of floor waxer. R. at 368-69. Such a hypothetical
individual who also would be able to remain on task 90% or
more of an eight-hour workday could perform these jobs. R. at
370-71. An individual off task 20% or more of an eight-hour
workday could not perform any work in the national economy,
however. R. at 371. With the exception of her testimony
regarding productivity, the VE's testimony was consistent
with the Dictionary of Occupational
Titles. R. at 371.
of ALJ's Decision
February 8, 2017, the ALJ found that Plaintiff (1) had not
engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged
onset date of disability of November 1, 2002; and (2) had an
impairment or a combination of impairments considered to be
“severe” on the basis of the requirements in the
Code of Federal Regulations; but (3) did not have an
impairment or a combination of impairments meeting or
equaling one of the impairments set forth in 20 C.F.R. pt.
404, subpt. P, app. 1; and (4) had no past relevant work; but
(5) could perform work in the national economy, such as a