Tucker v. Astrue
Filing
10
OPINION on Summary Judgment. The commissioner's decision denying Samuel Tucker's claim for disability insurance is supported by substantial evidence and will be affirmed. Samuel Tucker will take nothing from Michael J. Asture.(Signed by Judge Lynn N. Hughes) Parties notified.(chorace)
Samuel K. Tucker,
Plaintiff.
versus
Civil Action
H-I I-01987
Michael J. Astrue,
Defendant.
Opinion on 5ummary Judgment
I.
Introduction.
T h e question is whether substantial evidence supports the commissioner's decision
that Samuel Tucker is not disabled under the Social Security Act. It does.
2.
Standard of Review.
Tucker brought this action for judicial review of the commissioner's final decision to
deny him disability insurance benefits. Sce 42 U.S.C. 55 205(g), 405(g) ( 2 0 0 ~ ) .
Judicial review is limited to determining whether there is substantial evidence in the
record to support the commissioner's decision. This is a level of proof that a reasonable mind
would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
( 1 ~ ~ 1 ) decision
A .
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401
unsupported by substantial evidence must be overturned. It would be
arbitrary, failing the requirement that governmental process be regular. U.S. Const. amend. V.
3.
Statutoty Criteria.
T h e law has a five.step evaluation process to determine whether a claimant is disabled.
First, a claimant is not disabled if he works for substantial gain. Second, a claimant is not
disabled unless he has been medically impaired for at least twelve months. Third, a claimant
is not disabled unless his impairment meets one listed in appendix I of the regulation. Fourth,
if the commissioner has yet to make a determination, he will consider the effects of the
claimant's impairments on his capacity to work. If the claimant is able to perform his past work,
he is not disabled. Fifth, a claimant is not disabled if he can adjust to other work that is a
significant part of the national economy.
4.
20
C.F.R. S4o4.1j20(a) (2003).
Evidence.
A. Background.
Tucker is a jr-year.old man who says that he is physically disabled by cervical disc
disease, hypertension, and effects of a hand injury. He says his pain is debilitating.
Tucker has a tenth.grade education and has worked as a salesman, fork-lift operator, and
floor installer. W h e n he applied for Social Security on November 29, 2007, he said that his
disability had begun on January 13, 2007.
T h e hearing officer found that Tucker's disability did not meet a listed impairment. He
decided that Tucker could work as a resident manager or floor salesperson.
B . Application.
T h e hearing officer properly found that Tucker was not disabled. T h e process was
correctly followed.
First, Tucker has not been gainfully employed. Second, Tucker has been impaired for
more than twelve months. T h e hearing officer found that Tucker's cervical disc disease,
hypertension, and effects of a hand injury were severely impairing him. Each imposed
limitations on work.related functions. Third, none of Tucker's impairments met one listed.
Fourth, the officer correctly determined that Tucker could perform light work, with
limitations. Fifth, the officer correctly concluded that Tucker could perform his past work as
a resident manager and floor salesperson.
T o determine whether Tucker was disabled, the officer considered all of the evidence
from
2007 to
2009. T h e impairments of which Tucker complains are inconsistent from time
to time. He has complained of:
I.
Hepatitis C;
2. A n enlarged lymph node under the arm;
3. Kneecap swelling;
4. TWO
herniated discs;
j.
A problem with the S-I nerve;
6. Chronic pain;
7. Burning and numbness in the left arm and hand;
8. Exhaustion;
9. Dizziness; and
10.
Memory and concentration problems.
Tucker concluded that he was unable to work, yet he still travels to Florida by bus, car,
and airplane, and he does laundry, cooks, feeds his dog, reads, and watches television. His
doctor's records show that his pain is controlled because he takes the same dosage of
medication as he did in
2003.
There was more than enough evidence from Tucker, state
medical consultant, and his doctors to show that despite his limitations, Tucker is still capable
of earning a living by light work.
5.
Conclusion.
T h e commissioner's decision denying Samuel Tucker's claim for disability insurance
is supported by substantial evidence and will be affirmed. SamuelTucker will take nothing from
Michael J. Astrue.
Signed on March
2 I , 201 2,
at Houston, Texas.
Lynn N. Hughes
United States District Judge
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?