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.

Rodriguez v. Berryhill

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

March 31, 2018

MARY ANN RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REVERSE OR REMAND

         THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Mary Ann Rodriguez's Motion to Remand to Agency for Rehearing. Doc. 20. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will DENY Plaintiff's motion.

         I. Background

         Plaintiff initially filed applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits in September 2009. AR 113, 117. Plaintiff alleged a disability onset date of March 2008. AR 137. In 2011, Plaintiff's claims were denied. Subsequently, upon review by Magistrate Judge Steven Vidmar, Plaintiff's claims were remanded for further consideration. See Rodriguez v. SSA, Civ. No. 12-1285, Doc. 21 (D.N.M. Nov. 26, 2013). While Plaintiff's claims were pending in federal court, Plaintiff filed a second application alleging a disability onset date of April 2012, which was ultimately granted. AR 424. This resulted in Plaintiff's claims regarding the period between March 2008 and March 2012 being before the ALJ on remand.

         On May 5, 2016, the ALJ held a supplemental hearing on these claims. AR 424. The ALJ applied the grids and determined that Plaintiff became disabled as of January 9, 2011. Plaintiff therefore now appeals the ALJ's determination that she was not disabled between March 2008, and January 2011. AR 432. Because the parties are familiar with the record in this case, I will reserve discussion of Plaintiff's relevant medical history for my analysis.

         II. Applicable Law

         A. Disability Determination Process

         A claimant is considered disabled for purposes of Social Security disability insurance benefits if that individual is unable “to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). The Social Security Commissioner has adopted a five-step sequential analysis to determine whether a person satisfies these statutory criteria. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The steps of the analysis are as follows:

(1) Claimant must establish that she is not currently engaged in “substantial gainful activity.” If claimant is so engaged, she is not disabled and the analysis stops.
(2) Claimant must establish that she has “a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment . . . or combination of impairments” that has lasted for at least one year. If claimant is not so impaired, she is not disabled and the analysis stops.
(3) If claimant can establish that her impairment(s) are equivalent to a listed impairment that has already been determined to preclude substantial gainful activity, claimant is presumed disabled and the analysis stops.
(4) If, however, claimant's impairment(s) are not equivalent to a listed impairment, claimant must establish that the impairment(s) prevent her from doing her “past relevant work.” Answering this question involves three phases. Winfrey v. Chater, 92 F.3d 1017, 1023 (10th Cir. 1996). First, the ALJ considers all of the relevant medical and other evidence and determines what is “the most [claimant] can still do despite [her physical and mental] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). This is called the claimant's residual functional capacity (“RFC”). Id. § 404.1545(a)(3). Second, the ALJ determines the physical and mental demands of claimant's past work. Third, the ALJ determines whether, given claimant's RFC, claimant is capable of meeting those demands. A claimant who is capable of returning to past relevant work is not disabled and the analysis stops.
(5) At this point, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that claimant is able to “make an adjustment to other work.” If the Commissioner is unable to make that showing, claimant is deemed disabled. If, however, the Commissioner is able to make the required showing, the claimant is deemed not disabled.

See 20 C.F.R. § 1520(a)(4); Fischer-Ross v. Barnhart, 431 F.3d 729, 731 (10th Cir. 2005).

         B. ...


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.