Source: http://va.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180118_0000211.EVA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 12:51:40+00:00

Document:
Pursuant to the Social Security Act § 205(g), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Barbara Williams ("Plaintiff") seeks judicial review of the final decision of Nancy A. Berryhill ("Defendant"), the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, denying Plaintiff's claim for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") pursuant to Title II of the Social Security Act. On August 14, 2017, the certified Administrative Record ("R.") was filed under seal, pursuant to Local Civil Rules 5(B) and 7(C)(1). By October 23, 2017, both parties filed motions for summary judgment with briefs in support, which are now ripe for resolution. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge recommends, for the following reasons, that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 18) be DENIED and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 20) be GRANTED.
Plaintiff filed the presently disputed application for DIB on September 10, 2013, alleging disabling conditions of hypertension, chronic sinusitis, a severe pinched nerve in the neck, severe lower back pain, a nodule on the thyroid, arthritis in the neck, the inability to raise the right arm, the inability to walk or stand for long periods, pain on left side of the body, and severe weakness, with an alleged onset date ("AOD") of June 7, 2007. (R. at 87-88, 173-74.) Plaintiff's claims were first denied on March 11, 2014, then again on reconsideration on May 1, 2014. (Id at 104-09, 111-17.) On May 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed a request for a hearing in front of an administrative law judge ("ALJ"). (Id. at 135-36.) The hearing was held in front of ALJ Michael A. Krasnow on May 26, 2016, during which the testimonies of Plaintiff and vocational expert James M. Ryan were taken. (Id. at 44-80.) The ALJ issued his decision denying Plaintiff's claims on June 29, 2016. (Id. at 30-40.) On August 23, 2016, Plaintiff requested review of the ALJ's decision to the Appeals Council for the Office of Disability and Adjudication and Review ("Appeals Council"). (Id. at 26-28.) The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff s request for review on December 7, 2016, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of Defendant. (Id. at 6-8.) Plaintiff filed her Complaint (Dkt.1) for judicial review of Defendant's decision on February 8, 2017. After the Court granted an enlargement of time to answer, Defendant filed her timely Answer (Dkt. 8) on August 8, 2017. By October 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 18) and Defendant filed her Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 20). The matter is now ripe for review.
Under the Social Security Act, the Court's review of Defendant's final decision is limited to determining whether the ALJ's decision applied the correct legal standard was supported by substantial evidence in the record and whether the correct legal standard was applied in evaluating the evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). It is more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance. Hays, 907 F.2d at 1456. While the standard is high, where the ALJ's determination is not supported by substantial evidence on the record, or where the ALJ has made an error of law, the district court must reverse the decision. Coffman v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 514, 517 (4th Cir. 1987) .
In reviewing for substantial evidence, the Court must examine the record as a whole, but it may not "undertake to re- weigh the conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute [its] judgment for that of the Secretary." Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 176 (4th Cir. 2001) (citing Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d at 589 (4th Cir. 1996)). The correct law to be applied includes the Social Security Act, its implementing regulations, and controlling case law. See Coffman, 829 F.2d at 517-18. Moreover, relevant law charges Defendant with evaluating the medical evidence and assessing symptoms, signs, and medical findings to determine the functional capacity of a claimant, not the reviewing district court. See Hays, 907 F.2d at 1456-57. With this standard in mind, the Court evaluates the ALJ's findings and decision.
An ALJ is required to employ a five-step sequential evaluation in every Social Security disability claim analysis to determine a claimant's eligibility. The Court examines this five-step process on appeal to determine whether the correct legal standards were applied in this case, and whether Defendant's resulting decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. In accordance with the five-step sequential analysis, the ALJ made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The record contains eight years of Plaintiff's medical records, which cover distinct time frames. The first time frame is before June 7, 2007: the time before Plaintiff's AOD. The second time frame is from June 7, 2007, to December 31, 2012: the time between Plaintiff's AOD and Plaintiff's DLL The third time frame is after December 31, 2012: the time after Plaintiff's DLL The medical records from each time frame are described below.

References: § 205
 § 405
 § 636
 § 405
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.