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.

Thomas R. W. v. Saul

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

October 3, 2019

Thomas R. W., Plaintiff,
v.
Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          David F. Chermol, Chermol & Fishman LLC, and Edward C. Olson, Disability Attorneys of Minnesota (for Plaintiff); and

          Linda H. Green, (for Defendant).

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Tony N. Leung United States Magistrate Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff Thomas R. W. challenges Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's denial of his application for supplemental security income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381. This matter is before the Court on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. These motions have been referred to the undersigned for a report and recommendation to the district court, the Honorable Susan R. Nelson, District Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, under 28 U.S.C. § 636 and D. Minn. LR 72.1. For the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends that Plaintiff's motion be denied and that Defendant's motion be granted.

         II. BACKGROUND

         A. Procedural History

         Plaintiff filed an action for SSI on May 15, 2015, alleging a disability onset date of September 20, 1992. Plaintiff alleged an impairment of autism. Plaintiff was found not disabled on October 2, 2015. That finding was affirmed upon reconsideration. Plaintiff then requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. A hearing was held on December 29, 2017 and, on April 11, 2018, the ALJ issued a decision denying Plaintiff's claim for benefits. Plaintiff sought review of the ALJ's decision through the Appeals Council, which denied his request for review. Plaintiff now seeks review by this Court.

         B. Administrative Hearing and ALJ Decision

         The ALJ found that Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). (Tr. 13). The ALJ further found and concluded that Plaintiff 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. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1. (Tr. 14-18). The ALJ considered Listings 12.04, 12.10, and 12.11. Following this, the ALJ found Plaintiff to have the residual functioning capacity (“RFC”)

to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels but with the following nonexertional limitations: limited to an environment with moderate noise as defined by the Selected Characteristics of Occupations; restricted to the performance of simple, routine and repetitive tasks; limited to simple work-related decisions; limited in his interactions with supervisors, coworkers, and members of the public to no more than frequent.

(Tr. 18). The ALJ then concluded that Plaintiff had no past relevant experience; that Plaintiff was a younger individual age 18-49 on the date the application was filed; and that he had at least a high school education and was able to communicate in English. (Tr. 30). The ALJ further concluded that there were jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform. (Tr. 30). In particular, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff could work as an assembler and garment bagger. (Tr. 31). Accordingly, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled. (Tr. 32).

         III. ANALYSIS

         A. ...


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.