Source: http://nc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180301_0000734.ENC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 14:32:27+00:00

Document:
TERRENCE W. BOYLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This matter is before the court on plaintiffs motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 14] and defendant's motion seeking remand to the Social Security Administration [D.E. 16]. On December 21, 2017, the court held a hearing on the matter in Raleigh, North Carolina [D.E. 21]. For the reasons discussed below, plaintiffs motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 14] is GRANTED, defendant's motion [D.E. 16] is DENIED, the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for an award of benefits.
On November 11, 2012, plaintiff filed applications for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act ("Act") and supplemental security income benefits under Title XVI of the Act. [Tr. 92]. Plaintiff alleged a disability onset date of February 1, 2012. [Tr. 23]. Plaintiffs applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration. [Tr. 21].
On February 13, 2015, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") held a video hearing to consider plaintiff s claims de novo, [Tr. 37-67]. On March 30, 2013, the ALJ issued a decision finding that plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Act. [Tr. 21-32]. Plaintiff appealed and, on September 8, 2016, the Appeals Council denied review, thereby rendering the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. [Tr. 1-13]. On November 9, 2016, plaintiff filed a complaint in this court seeking review of the Commissioner's final decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See [D.E. 5].
A district court's review of the Commissioner's final decision is limited to determining whether the correct legal standard was applied and whether, based on the entire administrative record, there is substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's findings. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). Substantial evidence is defined as "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) (per curiam) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
The ALJ engages in a sequential five-step evaluation process to make an initial disability determination. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a); see Johnson, 434 F.3d at 653. The burden of proof is on the claimant for the first four steps of this inquiry, but shifts to the Commissioner at the fifth step. Pass v. Chater, 65 F.3d 1200, 1203 (4th Cir. 1995). If a decision regarding the claimant's disability can be made at any step of the process, the ALJ's inquiry ceases. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).
When evaluating adults, the ALJ denies the claim at step one if the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4). At step two, the ALJ denies the claim if the claimant does not have a severe impairment or combination of impairments significantly limiting him from performing basic work activities. Id. At step three, the ALJ compares the claimant's impairment to those in the Listing of Impairments. See 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App. 1. If the impairment is listed, or equivalent to a listed impairment, disability is conclusively presumed without considering the claimant's age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d). However, if the impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment, the ALJ then makes a residual functional capacity ("RFC") finding. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(e).
In making an RFC finding, the ALJ's considers both severe and non-severe impairments, and any combination thereof, and takes into account both objective medical evidence as well as subjective complaints of pain and limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(e). The ALJ further considers . the claimant's ability to meet the physical, mental, sensory, and other requirements of accomplishing work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(4). An RFC finding is meant to reflect the most that a claimant can do, despite his limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). Moreover, an RFC finding should reflect the claimant's ability to perform sustained work-related activities in a work setting on regular and continuing basis, meaning eight-hours per day, five days per week. See SSR 96-8p; Hines v. Barnhart, 453 F.3d 559, 562 (4th Cir. 2006).

References: § 405
 § 405
 v. 
 v. 
 § 404
 v. 
 § 404
 § 416
 § 416
 § 404
 § 404
 § 404
 § 404
 v.