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.

Ivey v. Berryhill

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Augusta Division

June 12, 2018

KIARA T. IVEY, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Deputy Commissioner for Operations of the Social Security Administration, Performing the Duties and Functions Not Reserved to the Commissioner of Social Security, [1] Defendant.

          MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          BRIAN K. EPPS UNITED STALES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Kiara T. Ivey appeals the decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for Child Insurance Benefits (“CIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under the Social Security Act. Upon consideration of the briefs submitted by both parties, the record evidence, and the relevant statutory and case law, the Court REPORTS and RECOMMENDS the Commissioner's final decision be AFFIRMED, this civil action be CLOSED, and a final judgment be ENTERED in favor of the Commissioner.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff applied for CIB on April 1, 2013, and for SSI on February 21, 2013, alleging a disability onset date of September 10, 2002. Tr. (“R.”), pp. 17, 231-40. Plaintiff was eleven years old at her alleged disability onset date and was twenty-five years old at the time the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued the decision currently under consideration. R. 28, 217.

         Plaintiff applied for benefits based on allegations of ADHD and mental retardation. R. 251. Plaintiff received a certificate of achievement from special education classes. R. 39, 252. Plaintiff participated in a vocational training program, but has never worked. R. 40, 251.

         The Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff's application initially, R. 127-133, and on reconsideration, R. 134-140. Plaintiff requested a hearing before an ALJ, R. 141-42, and the ALJ held a hearing on June 14, 2016. R. 35-58. The ALJ heard testimony from Plaintiff, who appeared with counsel, as well as from Wendy Klamm, a Vocational Expert (“VE”). Id. On August 9, 2016, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision. R. 17-28.

         Applying the sequential process required by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920, the ALJ found:

1. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since September 10, 2002, the alleged onset date (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1571 et seq. and 416.971 et seq.).
2. The claimant has the following severe impairments: borderline intellectual functioning and a personality disorder (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c)).
3. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926).
4. The claimant has the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels but with the following non-exertional limitations: simple repetitive work with one, two, and three-step instructions; no direct dealing with the public; and only occasional dealing with coworkers; working mainly with things, not people. The claimant has no past relevant work (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1565 and 416.965).
5. Considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and RFC, there are jobs that exist in significant No. in the national economy that the claimant can perform, including hand packager, kitchen helper, and price marker (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1569, 404.1569(a), 416.969, and 416.969(a)). Therefore, the claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from September 10, 2002, through August 9, 2016 (the date of the ALJ's decision) (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g) and 416.920(g)).

R. 19-28.

         When the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review, R. 1-6, the Commissioner's decision became “final” for the purpose of judicial review. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Plaintiff then filed this ...


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.