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.

Nurre v. Colvin

United States District Court, D. Colorado

May 30, 2017

BRENDA R. NURRE, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          ORDER

          R. Brooke Jackson United States District Judge.

         This matter is before the Court on review of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) Commissioner's decision denying claimant Brenda Nurre's application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act. Jurisdiction is proper under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). For the reasons below, the Court REVERSES and REMANDS the Commissioner's decision.

         I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         This appeal is based upon the administrative record and the parties' briefs. In reviewing a final decision by the Commissioner, the District Court examines the record and determines whether it contains substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's decision and whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards. Winfrey v. Chater, 92 F.3d 1017, 1019 (10th Cir. 1996). A decision is not based on substantial evidence if it is “overwhelmed by other evidence in the record.” Bernal v. Bowen, 851 F.2d 297, 299 (10th Cir. 1988). Substantial evidence requires “more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance.” Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048, 1052 (10th Cir. 2009). Evidence is not substantial if it “constitutes mere conclusion.” Musgrave v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1371, 1374 (10th Cir. 1992). In addition, reversal may be appropriate if the Commissioner applies an incorrect legal standard or fails to demonstrate that the correct legal standards have been followed. Winfrey, 92 F.3d at 1019.

         II. BACKGROUND

         Ms. Nurre was born on February 25, 1977. R. 1894. She has a bachelor's degree and speaks English. Id.; R. 30. In the past, Ms. Nurre worked as an administrative assistant, bank cashier/teller, and counter clerk. R. 1894. She also served a brief stint in the military. See R. 100. However, since her alleged disability onset date of July 1, 2008 through her date last insured of March 31, 2009, Ms. Nurre has not held substantial gainful employment. R. 1886.

         According to the record, Ms. Nurre suffers from numerous medical conditions, including the following: “history of partial tear of supraspinatus muscle; status post right knee injury; lumbrosacral strain; right tronchanteric bursitis; migraines; major depression; anxiety disorder; premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD)[.]” See, e.g., R. 1886.

         A. Procedural History

         On September 17, 2009 Ms. Nurre filed an application for DIB, alleging disability beginning on July 1, 2008. See R. 13, 100-04. Her claims were initially denied on June 7, 2010. R. 13, 58-60. Ms. Nurre subsequently requested a hearing, which was held before Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) E. William Shaffer on July 19, 2011. R. 27-42. The ALJ denied Ms. Nurre's application on September 16, 2011. R. 13-23. Ms. Nurre then filed a request for review with the Appeals Council. See R. 7-9. The Appeals Council rejected Ms. Nurre appeal on September 26, 2012. R. 1-6. The ALJ's decision, however, was subsequently reversed and remanded on March 31, 2014 by my colleague, Judge Philip Brimmer. R. 1969- 80; Nurre v. Colvin, 12-CV-03060-PAB, 2014 WL 1292878, at *6 (D. Colo. Mar. 31, 2014).

         Plaintiff subsequently had a second hearing. R. 1902-30. In a remarkably similarly decision to his first (almost word for word in parts), the ALJ again found that plaintiff did not suffer from a disability. R. 1884-95. Plaintiff subsequently appealed that second decision to the Appeals Council, which again denied her appeal. R. 1856-64. Ms. Nurre then filed her case in this Court on May 25, 2016. ECF No. 1.

         B. The ALJ's Decision

         The ALJ issued a second unfavorable decision after evaluating the evidence according to the SSA's standard five-step process. R. 1884-95. First, the ALJ found that Ms. Nurre had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since her alleged onset date of July 1, 2008. R. 1886. At step two, the ALJ found that Ms. Nurre had the following severe impairments: “history of partial supraspinatus tear; status post right knee injury; lumbosacral strain; right tronchanteric bursitis; migraines; major depression; anxiety disorder; premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD)[.]” Id. At step three, the ALJ concluded that Ms. Nurre did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. Id.

         The ALJ then found that Ms. Nurre retained the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform “light work” as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b) with the following limitations:

The claimant could stand/walk and sit each six hours of an eight-hour workday, could push and pull with upper and lower extremities within the light exertional level, could not climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds, could occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl, and needed to avoid concentrated exposure to temperature extremes, vibrations, unprotected heights and unprotected running or operating major manufacturing machinery. The claimant could perform unskilled work. The claimant required decreased interpersonal contact with the general public, co-workers and supervisors no more than occasionally during ...

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.