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.

Barnett v. Colvin

United States District Court, D. Oregon

March 2, 2017

JORDAN M. BARNETT, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          Merrill Schneider Schneider Kerr Law Offices Attorney for Plaintiff

          Billy J. Williams, Acting U.S. Attorney Janice Hebert, Asst. U.S. Attorney

          Sarah Elizabeth Moum Special Asst. U.S. Attorney Office of the General Counsel Social Security Administration Attorneys for Defendants

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

          John Jelderks U.S. Magistrate Judge

         Plaintiff Jordon[1] Barnett brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §405(g) seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the Commissioner) denying his application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under the Social Security Act (the Act). Plaintiff seeks an Order remanding the action to the Social Security Administration (the Agency) for an award of benefits or, in the alternative, remanding for further proceedings.

         For the reasons set out below, the Commissioner's decision should be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

         Procedural Background

         Plaintiff protectively filed an application for SSI on May 10, 2011, alleging he had been disabled since June 23, 1990.

         After his claims were denied initially and upon reconsideration, Plaintiff timely requested an administrative hearing.

         On July 30, 2013, a hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Glenn Meyers. Plaintiff and Richard Hincks, a Vocational Expert (VE), testified at the hearing. Plaintiff was represented by counsel.

         In a decision dated, August 12, 2013, ALJ Meyers found that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Act.

         On April 2, 2015, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review, rendering the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. In the present action, Plaintiff challenges that decision.

         Background

         Plaintiff was born in 1990 and was 23 years old at the time of the ALJ's decision. Tr. 210. He attended special education classes in school and graduated from high school. Tr. 225. He has no past relevant work. Tr. 23.

         Disability Analysis

         The ALJ engages in a five-step sequential inquiry to determine whether a claimant is disabled within the meaning of the Act. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. Below is a summary of the five steps, which also are described in Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 1999).

         Step One. The Commissioner determines whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity (SGA). A claimant engaged in such activity is not disabled. If the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, the Commissioner proceeds to evaluate the claimant's case under Step Two. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b).

         Step Two. The Commissioner determines whether the claimant has one or more severe impairments. A claimant who does not have such an impairment is not disabled. If the claimant has a severe impairment, the Commissioner proceeds to evaluate the claimant's case under Step Three. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

         Step Three. Disability cannot be based solely on a severe impairment; therefore, the Commissioner next determines whether the claimant's impairment “meets or equals” one of the presumptively disabling impairments listed in the Social Security Administration (SSA) regulations, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. A claimant who has such an impairment is disabled. If the claimant's impairment does not meet or equal an impairment listed in the regulations, the Commissioner's evaluation of the claimant's case proceeds under Step Four. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

         Step Four. The Commissioner determines whether the claimant is able to perform relevant work he or she has done in the past. A claimant who can perform past relevant work is not disabled. If the claimant demonstrates he or she cannot do work performed in the past, the Commissioner's evaluation of the claimant's case proceeds under Step Five. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).

         Step Five. The Commissioner determines whether the claimant is able to do any other work. A claimant who cannot perform other work is disabled. If the Commissioner finds that the claimant is able to do other work, the Commissioner must show that a significant number of jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can do. The Commissioner may satisfy this burden through the testimony of a vocational expert (VE) or by reference to the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2. If the Commissioner demonstrates that a significant number of jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can do, the claimant is not disabled. If the Commissioner does not meet this burden, the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g)(1).

         At Steps One through Four, the burden of proof is on the claimant. Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098. At Step Five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that the claimant can perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. Id.

         ALJ's Decision

         At the first step of his disability analysis, the ALJ found that although Plaintiff had worked after the application date, his work activity had not risen to the level of substantial gainful activity.

         At the second step, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the severe impairment of low intellectual functioning. Tr. 18.

         At the third step, the ALJ found that Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or equaled a presumptively disabling impairment set out in ...


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.