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.

Lewis v. Berryhill

United States District Court, D. Delaware

March 18, 2019

MARK W. LEWIS, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          Gary Linarducci, LINARDUCCI & BUTLER, New Castle, DE

          Karl E. Osterhout, OSTERHOUT BERGER DISABILITY LAW, Oakmont, PA Attorneys for Plaintiff

          David C. Weiss, United States Attorney, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Wilmington, DE

          Heather Benderson, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Eric P. Kressman, Regional Counsel, and Anne von Scheven, Assistant Regional Counsel, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, PA Attorneys for Defendant

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          STARK, U.S DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Mark A. Lewis ("Lewis" or "Plaintiff) appeals the decision of Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill, the Acting Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner" or "Defendant"), denying his claim for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits. (D.I. 1) The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

         Before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. (D.I. 9, 10) Plaintiff Lewis seeks reversal of the Commissioner's decision and remand to the Commissioner for what he contends would be proper consideration of the record. (D.I. 9-1 at 20) The Commissioner requests that the Court affirm the decision denying Lewis' claim for benefits. (D.I. 10)

         For the reasons stated below, the Court will deny Lewis' motion for summary judgment and grant the Commissioner's motion.

         I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         On December 3, 2013, Lewis filed an application for disability benefits, alleging disability beginning on November 15, 2012. (D.I. 6 ("Tr.") at 179) Lewis later amended his benefits period to close on January 15, 2015, following his recovery. (Tr. 39) Lewis' claim was denied initially on January 27, 2014, and upon reconsideration on August 6, 2014. (Tr. 83-107) On September 11, 2014, Lewis requested a hearing with an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). (Tr. 122-23) The hearing took place on September 27, 2016. (Tr. 58-80)

         After the hearing, on November 23, 2016, the ALJ issued the following findings:

1. The claimant last met the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act on June 30, 2015.
2. The claimant did not engage in substantial gainful activity during the period from his alleged onset date of November 15, 2012 through the end of the closed period on January 15, 2015 (20 CFR 404.1571 et seq.).
3. Through the date last insured, the claimant had the following severe impairments: Bipolar Disorder, Depression (20 CFR 404.1520(c)).
4. Through the date last insured, the claimant did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 404.1520(d), 404.1525 and 404.1526).
5. After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that, through the date last insured, the claimant had the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels but with the following non-exertional limitations: the claimant is limited to simple, routine tasks in a work environment free of fast paced production requirements involving simple work related decisions with few, if any, work place changes; and occasional interaction with the public and co-workers.
6. Through the date last insured, the claimant was unable to perform any past relevant work (20 CFR 404.1565).
7. The claimant was born on August 2, 1961 and was 53 years old, which is defined as an individual closely approaching advanced age, on the date last insured (20 CFR 404.1563).
8. The claimant has at least a high school education and is able to communicate in English (20 CFR 404.1564).
9. Transferability of job skills is not material to the determination of disability because using the Medical-Vocational Rules as a framework supports a finding that the claimant is "not disabled," whether or not the claimant has transferable job skills (See SSR 82-41 and 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2).
10. Through the dated last insured, considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant ...

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.