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.

Teague v. Colvin

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

December 15, 2015

PHILIP TEAGUE, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant

          For Philip Teague, Plaintiff: Michael J. Kelley, Law Office of Michael J. Kelley, Boston, MA.

         For Carolyn W. Colvin, Defendant: Giselle J. Joffre, LEAD ATTORNEY, United States Attorney's Office MA, Boston, MA; Shelbey D. Wright, LEAD ATTORNEY, United States Attorney's Office, Boston, MA.

         For Social Security Administration, Interested Party: Thomas D. Ramsey, LEAD ATTORNEY, Office of the General Counsel, Boston, MA.

         MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REVERSE AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER

         F. Dennis Saylor IV, United States District Judge.

         This is an appeal of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (" SSA" ) denying Philip Teague's application for Social Security Disability Income (" SSDI" ) benefits. The Commissioner denied Teague's claim for benefits, finding that he was not disabled as of March 31, 2011, the last date that he was eligible for benefits. Teague appeals the Commissioner's decision on the ground that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Specifically, Teague contends that the SSA's Appeals Council improperly failed to consider a finding by the Veterans Administration (" VA" ) that he was 100 percent disabled as of July 31, 2012.

         Pending before the Court are Teague's motion to reverse the decision of the Commissioner and the Commissioner's motion to affirm her decision. For the reasons stated below, the decision of the Commissioner will be affirmed.

         I. Background

         Philip Teague was 49 years old in 2011, the date that he was last insured. (A.R. 22).[1] He is a high school graduate; his work has included working with concrete, operating a wood plane in a lumber mill, and operating the front desk at a homeless shelter. (A.R. 46, 55).

         Teague served in the military from 1979 through 1983. (A.R. 48). While in the military, he suffered a knee injury. He contends that his injury became worse over time and now occasionally requires a knee brace. (A.R. 55-58). He also suffers from back pain and hearing loss. (A.R. 57, 59-60).

         Teague testified that he also suffered a head injury during his military service, and that the injury has caused him light-headedness and headaches. (A.R. 61-62). During 2011, Teague suffered headaches three or four times per month, and they occasionally required rest and pain medication. (A.R. 63). Teague also testified that he experienced memory loss that made it difficult to remember names, but that he was able to follow basic instructions. (A.R. 65).

         Teague further testified that he had suffered from depression since the 1980s. (A.R. 66). Although he testified that he learned how to deal with his mental health issues, Teague also noted that he abused alcohol and drugs until December 2010. (A.R. 66-67). He also testified that he suffered from PTSD in connection with an accident during his military service in Korea. (A.R. 69). He stated that he experienced mood swings and interact well in crowds. (A.R. 79). He testified that he easily became tired and would nap in front of the television for two or three hours per day. (A.R. 81).

         Teague testified that he thought that he could lift up to 50 pounds during the relevant period, but would have trouble sitting for long periods. (A.R. 89). He stated that he could walk for one mile, but would " pay for it in the long run." (A.R. 90). He did not have problems with pushing or pulling.

         In reaching a decision, the ALJ asked the vocational expert to assume a person of plaintiff's age, education, and work experience, who could perform work at the medium level, with the following restrictions: only frequent lifting of 20 pounds; only occasional lifting of 40 pounds; only occasional stooping, crouching, crawling, or kneeling; tasks with an SVP of 3 or lower; the ability to be off task less than 10 percent of the time; and avoidance of workplace hazards, vibration, and extreme cold. (A.R. 91-94). The vocational expert testified that such an individual could not perform any of plaintiff's past work, but could perform the jobs of janitor, dishwasher, or laundry worker--jobs which existed in significant numbers in the local and national economies. ( Id. ).

         II. ...


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.