MEMORANDUM

MATTHEW W. BRANN, District Judge.

Background

The above-captioned action is one seeking review of a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying Plaintiff Tinamarie Cruz's claim for social security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits.

Disability insurance benefits are paid to an individual if that individual is disabled and "insured," that is, the individual has worked long enough and paid social security taxes. The last date that a claimant meets the requirements of being insured is commonly referred to as the "date last insured." It is undisputed that Cruz met the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2012. Tr. 28, 30 and 184.1 In order to establish entitlement to disability insurance benefits Cruz was required to establish that she suffered from a disability2 on or before that date. 42 U.S.C. §423(a)(1)(A), (c)(1)(B); 20 C.F.R. §404.131(a)(2008); see Matullo v. Bowen, 926 F.2d 240, 244 (3d Cir. 1990).

Supplemental security income is a federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues (not social security taxes). It is designed to help aged, blind or other disabled individuals who have little or no income. Insured status is irrelevant in determining a claimant's eligibility for supplemental security income benefits.

Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and relevant case law, the court is limited to reviewing the administrative record to determine whether the decision of the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence or infected with an error of law. Counsel for the parties are familiar with the five-step sequential evaluation process3 that the Commissioner utilizes and the substantial evidence and legal error standard of review.4

Cruz protectively filed5 an application for disability insurance benefits on April 2, 2012, and an application for supplemental security income benefits on April 13, 2012. Tr. 27, 115, 175-180 and 184. In those applications Cruz alleged that she became disabled on March 24, 2011. Tr. 175 and 177. However, as will be subsequently explained Cruz has not worked since August 27, 2007, when she was involved in a motor vehicle accident. Cruz claims that she is disabled because of both physical and mental impairments, including degenerative disc disease of the cervical and lumbar spine and bipolar disorder. Tr. 203-204. On July 6, 2012, the Bureau of Disability Determination6 denied Cruz's applications. Tr. 27 and 146-155. On August 21, 2012, Cruz requested a hearing before an administrative law judge. Tr. 27 and 156-157. After about 12 months had passed, a hearing was held on August 5, 2013. Tr. 71-93. On October 16, 2013, the administrative law judge issued a decision denying Cruz's applications. Tr. 27-39. The administrative law judge found that Cruz had the residual functional capacity to perform a limited range of sedentary work and based on that residual functional capacity she had the ability to engage in her past relevant employment as a "vaccine producer." 3 Tr. 32 and 38-39. On November 1, 2013, Cruz requested that the Appeals Council review the administrative law judge's decision and on February 10, 2014, the Appeals Council concluded that there was no basis upon which to grant Cruz's request for review. Tr. 6-10 and 22. Thus, the administrative law judge's decision stood as the final decision of the Commissioner.

Cruz then filed a complaint in this court on April 14, 2014. Supporting and opposing briefs were submitted and the appeal4 became ripe for disposition on September 22, 2014, when Cruz elected not to file a reply brief.

For the reasons set forth below we will remand the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings.

Discussion

Cruz was born in the United States on May 3, 1971, and at all times relevant to this matter was considered a "younger individual"5 whose age would not seriously impact her ability to adjust to other work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1563(c) and 416.963(c); Tr. 76, 143-144 and177.

Cruz has the equivalent of a high school education and can, read, write, speak and understand the English language and perform basic mathematical functions such as paying bills, counting change, handling a savings account and using a checkbook and money orders. Tr. 202, 204 and 222. During her elementary and secondary schooling, Cruz attended regular education classes. Tr. 204.

Cruz in the present appeal raises basically the following two issues: (1) the administrative law judge erred in finding that she had the capacity to perform work as a "vaccine producer,"6 and (2) the administrative law judge erred in evaluating the medical and non-medical evidence, particularly the opinions of treating medical providers.

This is the second time that Cruz has filed an appeal from an adverse decision of the Commissioner. The period of disability covered by that prior case was August 27, 2007, when she was involved in a motor vehicle accident through March 22, 2011. The DIB and SSI applications in that prior case were filed with the Social Security Administration on August 18 and 19, 2009, respectively. An administrative law judge denied those prior applications on March 22, 2011. The Appeals Council denied review, a complaint was filed in this court, and on September 17, 2013, this court remanded that prior case to the Commissioner for further proceedings. Cruz v. Astrue, Civil No. 12-135, slip op., (M.D. Pa. Sept. 17, 2013)(Caldwell, J.)(Doc. 13).

The record in that prior case revealed that Cruz had past relevant employment as a (1) cleaner of laboratory equipment which was described as unskilled, medium work by a vocational expert, (2) loader and unloader at a Walmart Distribution Center which was described as semi-skilled, heavy work, and (3) production line worker which was described as unskilled, heavy work.7 Id., slip op. at 4-5. Cruz also worked as a waitress for various restaurants. Id. The administrative law judge in that prior case found that Cruz's past relevant work was medium to heavy work and since that determination Cruz has not engaged in any additional work. Tr. 30 and 398. That prior case was remanded for the Commissioner to appropriately consider the opinions of treating physicians and the credibility of Cruz. The record does not reveal the disposition of the prior case after being remanded to the Commissioner.8

In the present case as noted above the DIB and SSI applications were filed on April 2 and 13, 2012, respectively, and the administrative law judge was aware of the prior applications filed by Cruz and the decision of the administrative law judge who handled that case. With respect to the prior case the administrative law judge stated as follows in the decision of October 16, 2013:

Tr. 27.

Records of the Social Security Administration reveal that Cruz had earnings in the years 1987, 1988 and 1991 through 2008, a total of 20 years. Tr. 185. Cruz's average earnings during those years were $10,386.46. Id. Cruz's earnings ranged from a low of $841.97 in 2008 to a high of $25,955.09 in 2004. Id. Cruz's total earnings were $207,732.93. Id. However, according to the testimony of Cruz at the administrative hearing held on February 9, 2011, before the administrative law judge Hardiman, the earnings in 2008-$841.97 — were from a disability plan and she was not employed during that year. Cruz v. Astrue, Civil No. 12-135 (M.D. Pa.)(Docs. 5-2, at 52 & 5-6, at 124); Tr. 629. As stated above, Cruz was involved in an automobile accident on August 27, 2007, and has not worked since that date. Id.

The administrative law judge in the present case as noted above rendered her decision on October 16, 2013, and the Appeals Council denied review on February 10, 2014. The prior case was remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings by this court on September 17, 2013. In light of that remand, the administrative law judge's determination in her decision of October 16, 2013, that there was no basis to reopen the prior case was erroneous. Moreover, as pointed out by Cruz in her brief the administrative law judge in the prior case found that all of Cruz's past relevant employment was at least medium work and it was error for the administrative law judge in the decision of October 16, 2013, to find that Cruz's work as a "vaccine producer"9 was sedentary work and that she had the ability to perform that work. It was inappropriate for the administrative law judge to relitigate the issue of Cruz's past relevant employment in light of the administrative law judge's refusal to reopen the prior case and the fact that Cruz had no further employment after August, 2007. Under the circumstances presented, the administrative law judge erroneously relitigated the issue of past relevant employment.

Our review of the administrative record reveals legal error which renders the decision of the Commissioner defective and unsupported by substantial evidence. We will, therefore, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) vacate the decision of the Commissioner.

An appropriate order will be entered.