Source: http://nc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180119_0000739.ENC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 12:30:23+00:00

Document:
This matter is before the court on the parties' cross motions for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Loretha S. Ward (“Plaintiff”) filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of the denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). The time for filing responsive briefs has expired, and the pending motions are ripe for adjudication. Having carefully reviewed the administrative record and the motions and memoranda submitted by the parties, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [DE #22] be granted, Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [DE #26] be denied, and the Commissioner's decision be remanded for further proceedings.
Plaintiff applied for SSI on July 15, 2013, with an alleged onset date of July 14, 2013. (R. 13, 155.) The application was denied initially and upon reconsideration, and a request for hearing was filed. (R. 13, 74, 91, 110.) A video hearing was held on April 27, 2015, before Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Gary Brockington, who issued an unfavorable ruling on May 28, 2015. (R. 13, 26.) The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review on October 21, 2016. (R. 1.) Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the final administrative decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
The scope of judicial review of a final agency decision denying disability benefits is limited to determining whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's factual findings and whether the decision was reached through the application of the correct legal standards. See Coffman v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 514, 517 (4th Cir. 1987). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion; [i]t consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may be somewhat less than a preponderance.” Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996) (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971), and Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640, 642 (4th Cir. 1966)) (citations omitted) (alteration in original). “In reviewing for substantial evidence, [the court should not] undertake to re-weigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute [its] judgment for that of the [Commissioner].” Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 176 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Craig, 76 F.3d at 589) (first and second alterations in original). Rather, in conducting the “substantial evidence” inquiry, the court determines whether the Commissioner has considered all relevant evidence and sufficiently explained the weight accorded to the evidence. Sterling Smokeless Coal Co. v. Akers, 131 F.3d 438, 439-40 (4th Cir. 1997).

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