AYERS v. COLVIN
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER signed on 1/27/2017, RECOMMENDS that the Commissioner's decision finding no disability be REVERSED, and the matter be REMANDED t o the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. $ 405(g). The Commissioner should be directed to remand the matter to the ALJ for further administrative action as set out herein. To this extent, Plaintiff's motion for judgment (Docket Entry 12 ) should be GRANTED and Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Docket Entry 14 ) be DENIED. (Daniel, J)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ROBERT W. AYERS,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v
NANCY BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration,
Defendant.
I:LíCY934
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, Robet'V7. Ayers, brought this action pursuant to Section 205(9) of the Social
Security Act (the "Act"), as amended (42 U.S.C. $$ a05þ)), to obtain review of a Ftnal decision
of the Commissioner of Social Securityl denying his claims for a Period of Disability ("POD")
and Disability Insurance Benefits
("DIB") under Title II of the Act. The Cout
has before
it
the cettified administrative tecord and ctoss-motions for judgment.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff filed an application for
onset date of February 1,201,1,.
a
POD and DIB in May of 20L2 alleging
a disability
Çt. 1.4,231-232.)2 The application was denied initially and
I Nancy Berryhill recently became the Acting Commissioner of Social Secutity. Putsuant to
Rute 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Nancy Beryhill should be substituted for Carolyn
\X/. Colvin as Defendant in this suit. No further action need be taken to continue this suit by reason
of the last sentence of section 205(9) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. $ a05(g).
2
Transcript citations refer to the Administrative Transctþt of Record fi.led manually with the
Commissioner's Answer. (Docket Entry 7.)
again upon reconsideration.
(d.
at1.20-28, 130-31.) Plaintiff then requested a heanng
before an Âdministrative LawJudge (",{LJ") (id. at 138) and at the }./'ay 1',201'4hearíng were
Plaintiff, his attorney, and a vocational expet
("VE").
(Id. at 42-15.) The ALJ detetmined
Act. (d. at 1,1,-1,9.) On October.
1', 201,5, the
Appeats Council denied Plaintiffs request
fot review, making the ALJ's
decision the
Commissionet's final decision for purposes of
review. (d. at1'-4.)
that Plaintiff was not disabled undet the
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff was 47 years old on the alleged disabitity onset date. (Id. at1,7.) He had
a
limited education and was able to communicate in English. (Id.)
III. STANDARD FOR REVIEW
The Commissioner held that Plaintiff was not under a disability within the meaning of
the
Act.
Under 42 U.S.C. $ 405(9), the scope of judicial teview of the Commissionet's final
decision is specific and narrow. Srzith u. Schwei/
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?