Source: http://nc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180319_0001121.WNC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 12:15:06+00:00

Document:
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 13] and the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 15].
The Plaintiff, Richard Joseph Sneden (“Plaintiff”), filed applications for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act (the “Act”) and supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Act, alleging an onset date of October 31, 2011. [Transcript (“T.”) at 21]. The Plaintiff's application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. [Id.]. Upon Plaintiff's request, a hearing was held on August 17, 2015 before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). [T. at 45, 118]. On October 27, 2015, the ALJ issued a written decision denying the Plaintiff benefits, finding that the Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Act since October 31, 2011. [T. at 12-28]. The Appeals Council denied the Plaintiff's request for review, thereby making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. [T. at 1-6]. The Plaintiff has exhausted all available administrative remedies, and this case is now ripe for review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
The Court's review of a final decision of the Commissioner is limited to (1) whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's decision, Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); and (2) whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards, Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). “When examining [a Social Security Administration] disability determination, a reviewing court is required to uphold the determination when an ALJ has applied correct legal standards and the ALJ's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.” Bird v. Comm'r, 699 F.3d 337, 340 (4th Cir. 2012). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). “It consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may be less than a preponderance.” Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470, 472 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“In reviewing for substantial evidence, [the Court should] not undertake to reweigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute [its] judgment for that of the ALJ.” Johnson, 434 F.3d at 653 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). Rather, “[w]here conflicting evidence allows reasonable minds to differ, ” the Court defers to the ALJ's decision. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). To enable judicial review for substantial evidence, “[t]he record should include a discussion of which evidence the ALJ found credible and why, and specific application of the pertinent legal requirements to the record evidence.” Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2013).
[T]o perform a full range of work at all exertional levels but with the following nonexertional limitations: the [Plaintiff] can occasionally climb ladders, ropes, and scaffolds and can have no exposure to unprotected heights. The [Plaintiff] can have occasional interaction with supervisors, coworkers, and the public, and is able to understand, remember, and carry out simple one or two step instructions or tasks free of fast-paced or team-dependent production requirements involving simple-work related decisions and occasional, if any, work place changes. The [Plaintiff] should not be openly exposed to controlled substances or prescription medications such as work in a law enforcement evidence facility, forensic lab, pharmaceutical manufacturing plant, medical facility, or pharmacy. The [Plaintiff] would be off task a maximum of ten percent of the workday.

References: § 405
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.