Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Sean P. v. Saul

United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division

August 12, 2019

SEAN P., Plaintiff,
ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.[1]



         Plaintiff Sean P. 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 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. 14) and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17).[2] 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. 14) is GRANTED.



         On February 27, 2017, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Mary C. Peltzer held a hearing where Plaintiff and a vocational expert (“VE”) testified. R. at 30-59. The ALJ thereafter found on May 25, 2017, that Plaintiff was not disabled from his alleged onset date of disability of September 1, 2015, through the date of the ALJ's decision. R. at 9-29. In so finding, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had moderate limitations in concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace. R. at 16. The ALJ then found that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”)

to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except: standing and walking up to four hours per workday; occasional stairs and ramps; no ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; occasional balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching and crawling; and occasional exposure to workplace hazards such as vibration and dangerous moving machinery, but no exposure to unprotected heights. He can perform unskilled work involving simple, routine tasks with no independent goal setting and no work where the pace of productivity is dictated by an external source outside his control, such as conveyor belts. He can have no contact with the general public and occasional contact with supervisors and coworkers, with no tandem work assignments.

R. at 17.[3] In light of this RFC and the VE's testimony, the ALJ found that, although Plaintiff could not perform his past relevant work as a dump truck driver and car porter, he could perform other work, such as a final inspector, final assembler, or sorter. R at 22-23. The ALJ thus found that Plaintiff was not disabled from September 1, 2015, through May 25, 2017. R. at 24.

         After the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review, Plaintiff filed on July 9, 2018, a complaint in this Court seeking review of the Commissioner's 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 fully submitted.


         Disability Determinations and Burden of Proof

         The Social Security Act defines a disability as the inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment that can be expected to result in death or that has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1505, 416.905. A claimant has a disability when the claimant is “not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists . . . in significant numbers either in the region where such individual lives or in several regions of the country.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(2)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(B).

         To determine whether a claimant has a disability within the meaning of the Social Security Act, the Commissioner follows a five-step sequential evaluation process outlined in the regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; see Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 24-25, 124 S.Ct. 376, 379-80 (2003). “If at any step a finding of disability or nondisability can be made, the [Commissioner] will not review the claim further.” Thomas, 540 U.S. at 24, 124 S.Ct. at 379; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). The claimant has the burden of production and proof at steps one through four. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5, 107 S.Ct. 2287, 2294 n.5 (1987); Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d 288, 291 (4th Cir. 2013).

         First, the Commissioner will consider a claimant's work activity. If the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity, then the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i), 416.920(a)(4)(i).

         Second, if the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, the Commissioner looks to see whether the claimant has a “severe” impairment, i.e., an impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits the claimant's physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. Pass v. Chater, 65 F.3d 1200, 1203 ...

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.