Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180314_0000635.DSC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:26:50+00:00

Document:
Honorable Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge.
This is an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) seeking judicial review of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security's (“Commissioner”) final decision, which denied Plaintiff John Lewis Addison, Jr.'s (“Plaintiff”) claim for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”). The record includes the report and recommendation (“Report”) of United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, which was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a) (D.S.C.).
Plaintiff protectively filed for DIB on October 3, 2014, alleging disability beginning on October 2, 2014, due to the following medical conditions: neuropathy, diabetes, hypertension, knee pain, and post traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). His applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration, and he requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”). A hearing was held on December 2, 2015, at which Plaintiff, who was represented by counsel, appeared and testified. The ALJ also heard testimony from vocational expert (“VE”) Robert E. Brabham, Jr. The ALJ issued a decision dated January 13, 2016, denying Plaintiff's claim. Plaintiff requested review of his decision, and on June 2, 2016, the Appeals Council issued a notice denying Plaintiff's request for review. On July 5, 2016, the Appeals Council notified Plaintiff it was “setting aside [its] earlier action to consider additional information.” (Tr. at 1-7.) Upon consideration, the Appeals Council “found no reason under [its] rules to review the Administrative Law Judge's decision.” (Tr. at 1.) The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review, making the ALJ's decision the Commissioner's final decision for purposes of judicial review. Plaintiff filed this action seeking judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision on September 2, 2016.
Plaintiff was born in 1967 and was 47 years old on his alleged onset date of October 2, 2014. Plaintiff completed high school and has past relevant work as a logistics associate for an automotive manufacturing business. Plaintiff's duties as a logistics associate included loading and unloading trucks with a forklift.
[The first step is] whether the claimant engaged in substantial gainful employment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). If not, the analysis continues to determine whether, based upon the medical evidence, the claimant has a severe impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c) If the claimed impairment is sufficiently severe, the third step considers whether the claimant has an impairment that equals or exceeds in severity one or more of the impairments listed in Appendix I of the regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d); 20 C.F.R. Part 404, subpart P, App. I. If so, the claimant is disabled. If not, the next inquiry considers if the impairment prevents the claimant from returning to past work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a) If the answer is in the affirmative, the final consideration looks to whether the impairment precludes that claimant from performing other work.
Mastro, 270 F.3d at 177 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.920).

References: § 636
 § 404
 § 404
 § 404
 § 404
 § 404
 § 416