Source: http://nc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180322_0001202.WNC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 12:27:49+00:00

Document:
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendants.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 6) and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 8). Plaintiff, through counsel, seeks judicial review of an unfavorable administrative decision on her application for Disability Insurance Benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.
I find the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) except she is limited to jobs that permit the option to alternate between sitting and standing in one hour intervals; she is limited to occasional climbing of ladders, ropes and scaffolds; frequent, but not constant, climbing of stairs, balancing, stooping, crouching, kneeling, and crawling; no concentrated exposure to hazards such as moving machinery or unprotected heights; no concentrated exposure to humidity, heat, vibrations, dust, fumes, and gasses; and she is limited to unskilled work.
Plaintiff requested a review of this hearing decision on September 10, 2015. (Tr. 24.) This request was denied by the Appeals Council on December 16, 2016. (Tr. 1.) Therefore, the ALJ's decision dated July 22, 2015, became the final decision of the Commissioner. Plaintiff then brought the instant suit before this Court to challenge the Commissioner's decision, and this case is now ripe for judicial review pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Here, Plaintiff presents two arguments purporting to show error in Defendant's decision, both of which related to the ALJ's RFC analysis and finding. When reviewing a Social Security disability determination, a reviewing court must “uphold the determination when an [Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)] has applied correct legal standards and the ALJ's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.” Bird v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 699 F.3d 337, 340 (4th Cir. 2012). Substantial evidence is that which “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 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 the record for substantial evidence, the Court does “not undertake to reweigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ. Where conflicting evidence allows reasonable minds to differ as to whether a claimant is disabled, the responsibility for that decision falls on the ALJ.” Id. (brackets, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted).
In considering an application for disability benefits, an ALJ uses a five-step sequential process to evaluate the disability claim. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). Pursuant to this five-step process, the Commissioner asks, in sequence, whether the claimant: (1) worked during the alleged period of disability; (2) had a severe impairment; (3) had an impairment that met or equaled the severity of a listed impairment; (4) could return to his past relevant work; and (5) if not, could perform any other work in the national economy. Id.; see also Lewis v. Berryhill, 858 F.3d 858, 861 (4th Cir. 2017) (citing Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 634 (4th Cir. 2015)); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4)). The claimant bears the burden of proof at steps one through four, but the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five. See Lewis, 858 F.3d at 861; Monroe v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 176, 179-80 (4th Cir. 2016). “Satisfying step 3 warrants an automatic finding of disability, and relieves the decision maker from proceeding to steps 4 and 5.” Patterson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 846 F.3d 656, 659 (4th Cir. 2017) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 404.1520(d); see also Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 532 (1990)).
“If the claimant fails to demonstrate she has a disability that meets or medically equals a listed impairment at step three, the ALJ must assess the claimant's residual functional capacity (“RFC”) before proceeding to step four.” Lewis, 858 F.3d at 861. Here, the ALJ assesses the claimant's RFC to determine what is “the most” the claimant “can still do despite” physical and mental limitations that affect her ability to work. Id. § 416.945(a)(1); § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

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