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.

Ward v. Colvin

United States District Court, Middle District of Georgia, Macon Division

July 25, 2014

JESSICA C. WARD, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

Social Security Appeal

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Charles H. Weigle United States Magistrate Judge

This is a review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff Jessica C. Ward’s application for benefits. In accordance with the analysis below, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner’s decision be AFFIRMED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, who was born in July 1981, applied for Title II and Title XVI benefits in October 2009. (Pl.’s Br., Doc. 15, pp. 3-4). Plaintiff’s alleged initial onset date is November 1, 2006, and Plaintiff claims that she is disabled due to, among other things, “psychiatric problems that produce[] symptoms such as mood swings, anxiety, paranoia, and auditory hallucinations.” (Id.). Specifically, Plaintiff claimed, at her administrative hearing, that she has been diagnosed with “bipolar [disorder, ] schizoaffective [disorder] and borderline personality disorder.” (R. 73). These impairments, Plaintiff claims, limit Plaintiff’s ability to interact with coworkers and with the general public. (R. 61).

Plaintiff previously worked as an in-home caretaker, a cashier, a “cook and dietary aide, ” and a deli worker. (R. 65-74). Most recently, from the end of 2010 to early 2011, Plaintiff worked as an in-home caretaker for two clients for about six hours a week. (R. 65-68). One of Plaintiff’s clients was her stepfather, with whom she lived in Visalia, California. (Id.). In 2011, Plaintiff became pregnant and moved to Macon, Georgia to be with her mother, who offered to help care for the child. (R. 60).

Regarding the part-time nature of most of her past work, Plaintiff stated, at her administrative hearing:

[M]ost recently it was because I chose to work part time. And before, it was because that was what . . . was available. But when I had the option to become full time, I didn’t do it.
I – just too much for me to handle. It was just, like, too tired, too stressful. I’d get overwhelmed and I just didn’t – wasn’t handling it. I was barely handling part-time.

(R. 71)

Plaintiff’s application was denied initially and on reconsideration, and a reviewing administrative law judge (“ALJ”) determined that Plaintiff was not disabled on May 25, 2012.

(R. 32-47). The Appeals Council denied review in Plaintiff’s case on March 4, 2013, and Plaintiff now seeks review before this Court under “sentence four” of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 496 F.3d 1253 ...


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.